Tuesday, 6 December 2016

TUESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2016

TUESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Government Financial Position—Credit Ratings, Crown Debt, and Surplus

1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received confirming New Zealand’s sovereign credit rating?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Late yesterday, following the Prime Minister’s announcement, rating agency Moody’s confirmed New Zealand’s Aaa stable sovereign credit rating—and I think the Prime Minister was slightly disappointed about that! Moody’s said that New Zealand’s strong institutions support a smooth transition and policy continuity, that the New Zealand Government has effectively pursued a policy of fiscal consolidation and Government debt is likely to remain low, and that GDP growth has been strong and broad-based.

David Bennett: What reports has he received on the Government’s accounts showing tax revenues higher than forecast?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Earlier today the Government released its financial statements for the 4 months to October, which show that the operating balance is around $0.9 billion better than forecast in Budget 2016 as at a deficit of $131 million. Core Crown tax revenue is $670 million higher, largely due to higher corporate tax revenues and GST. However, these numbers do not include the anticipated cost of the Kaikōura earthquake, but indicate that the economy is growing strongly enough that those costs can be met without a significant impact on the Government books.

David Seymour: When might the people who overpaid that extra tax get it back?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They will not be overpaying; they will just be paying what is legally due, although, as I sometimes point out, there is no legal maximum to how much tax you can pay—you are free to pay more if you want to, and it will be gratefully accepted. But what the numbers do show is that the economy is a bit stronger than was expected back in Budget 2016.

David Seymour: So when will the Government change those laws so it does not tax people more than it requires for its expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The nature or timing of such decisions is part of the ongoing discussion between the National Party and the ACT Party. We understand the ACT view very clearly. However, the National Party believes that there are more opportunities to carefully spend more public money. Where we are collecting more than we need, then there is the possibility of reducing taxes.

David Bennett: How is debt tracking against forecasts, as reported in today’s Crown financial statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Debt is tracking a little bit better than forecast. We have low Government debt by international comparisons. It peaked at about 25 or 26 percent of GDP, and it is gradually dropping—and these accounts indicate it is dropping a bit faster than we expected.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of the finance Minister’s discussions and negotiations with the ACT Party, on what day, at what address, and in which telephone booth did those negotiations take place?

Mr SPEAKER: I will leave it to the Minister, if he wants to answer—the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard for many years the member’s reference to the meetings that he does conduct in telephone booths, but these ones are conducted in the Prime Minister’s office because ACT is part of the governing coalition of New Zealand—and New Zealand First is not.

David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that history has moved on and most people actually have cellphones now?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

David Bennett: How does lower debt and ongoing discipline in spending support resilience in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The lessons of the Kaikōura earthquake, I think, demonstrate exactly why reducing Government debt maintains our resilience. This is an earthquake that could cost $2 billion to $3 billion. If the books were in worse shape, that would prevent us making other positive choices we could make to invest in transport and infrastructure, but because the books are in good shape we should be able to absorb the cost of the earthquake and continue to invest in infrastructure.

Prime Minister—Statements

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū ia i runga i te mana o tana korero “I honestly wish I could have changed the flag”, i te wā i pātaitia ai, he aha tana tino pōuri nui?

[Does he stand by his statement that “I honestly wish I could have changed the flag”, when asked for his greatest regret?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, but the member should know that I also stated that my other regrets were that we were unable to establish the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary and that the Trans-Pacific Partnership had not been fully ratified. Of course, there are many other things that I would love to continue working on, but I will be leaving those for the future leadership team.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister regret leaving 85,000 New Zealand children living in severe hardship?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am very proud of the record that this Government has established and maintained for the most vulnerable young New Zealanders. That has included the insulation of over 300,000 homes, being the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits, free doctors visits for children under 13, far greater participation rates in early childhood education, and the like. I think all Governments have work to do for the most vulnerable in their society, but this Government can hold its head up high because it has worked in the best interests of those young New Zealanders. I think the work that will continue in the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children will be an extremely important part of this Government’s future agenda.

Metiria Turei: When he said this morning that he would have liked to do more to help the country’s most vulnerable children, does he now regret voting against legislation that would feed every poor child in this country in school and create a warrant of fitness for their homes to stop them from getting sick and hospitalised?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from that, I am very proud of the work that the Government has done in relation to both insulation of homes and rheumatic fever, where there has been tremendous progress made. We have also championed, I think, a very logical programme of breakfast in schools, where we have partnered with Sanitarium and Fonterra. From memory, over 7 million breakfasts have been delivered, so I think the Government has, again, a very strong record, and a proud record, in that regard.

Metiria Turei: Why does he not regret leaving 41,000 New Zealanders homeless?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is certainly true is that as rent prices have increased, there have been a few more homeless New Zealanders. But what the Government has done is respond to that, and part of that was reflected in Budget 2016, with additional money for emergency support. The most recent package announced by the Minister for Social Housing was for $300 million worth of support for emergency housing. Again, I am very proud of the record that the Government has got in that regard.

Metiria Turei: Does he regret not addressing the housing crisis in 2009 when he recognised the early signs of it, which has left thousands of New Zealanders homeless and many more first-home buyers now priced out of the Auckland market?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, if I was to take the member back to 2009, for a start, interest rates were much higher than they are now, under this Government’s watch. There was not, from memory, KiwiSaver HomeStart for first-home buyers, which was introduced later on. The work that we did to ensure that there were 200 special housing areas, if not more, that were being undertaken. We received no support from the Green Party in terms of the desire to reform the Resource Management Act—quite the opposite. In 2009, if the member goes back and checks her records, she will find that property developers in Auckland were going broke. They were going out of business and the demand by first-home buyers and, indeed, any buyers in the Auckland property market and around the country was very limited because of the global financial crisis.

Metiria Turei: Does he regret that climate pollution rose 19 percent under his prime ministership?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am proud of the fact that the Government has introduced, over time, tougher standards in a range of areas. I am proud of the fact that we have increased the amount of renewable energy that New Zealand now uses. I am proud of the work that we are starting to progress around electric vehicles and the like. But the reality, when it comes to climate change, is that this Government has followed a steady and, actually, medium course when it comes to climate change. That is quite in contrast to a lot of countries around the world. I think that what we should be concerned about is, potentially, the United States, under President-Elect Donald Trump, pulling out from its commitments that were made under President Obama for the Paris Agreement. I think that is far more worrying than anything that New Zealand is doing. We have been progressing both an emissions trading scheme and a sensible policy approach to climate change.

Metiria Turei: Does he think he will look back on this time and regret that he spent more time worrying about Skycity Casino profits and selling off State assets than he did about the families and the children who needed him most as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I do believe that when the Skycity Auckland Convention Centre is completed, at zero cost to the New Zealand taxpayer and ratepayer, it will be a very fine asset for New Zealand. Over the course of my last 8 years as Prime Minister, an enormous amount of focus has gone into the welfare of all New Zealanders and into their rights, their interests, and their prosperity. I think New Zealand as a country can now rightfully say that it is far more confident about its place in the world and that it is more prosperous. That is why our economic results are great. I will leave this Parliament, when I eventually give my final speech, with a slightly warmer view towards this place and my role in it than, clearly, the member will.

Housing—Supply and Affordability

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “the prices you pay for a house are ridiculous”, given New Zealand house prices have risen by over 50 percent since he made that statement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, and the main change that has occurred since that statement was made is the Auckland Unitary Plan, which because of this Government’s legislation was passed in 3 years instead of 10, which now legally allows sufficient new supply of housing and, over the next 10 years, along with the major Government building programme, will have an influence on house prices.

Andrew Little: Is there a housing crisis—yes or no?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. New Zealand will be building tens of thousands of houses over the next few years. Because of the changes the Government has made, and will make, to the regulation of housing markets and planning, and the Government’s own building programme, we will see considerable further growth in the supply of houses and a moderation of the housing cycle.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “The most unfair aspect of it is that there’s no housing being built for people in the lowest quartile of income. Like none. That is clearly unsustainable.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and at the time, that was absolutely correct because the old Auckland plan and city plans, which used to be all supported by the Labour Party, had the result that no lower-cost housing was being built in areas like the North Shore. That is now changing—for instance, through the 1,000th house development that has been begun by Housing New Zealand in Northcote, where a thousand medium-density, medium-value houses will be produced.

Jami-Lee Ross: What steps is the Government taking as part of its—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I detect an air of anticipation and excitement, but I still need to get through question time with me being able to hear the questions being asked.

Jami-Lee Ross: What steps is the Government taking as part of its comprehensive plan to deliver more houses and more affordable housing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because the phenomenon of housing is so complex, it takes a large number of initiatives to push the housing market in the right direction, ranging from the $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund to the special housing areas, the expanded HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers, the national policy statement on urban development, the macro-prudential tools for the Reserve Bank, the fast-tracking of the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the large-scale building programme that the Government is setting out on.

Andrew Little: Does he accept that it was a mistake for him to rip over half a billion dollars in profits out of Housing New Zealand while kids were getting sick and dying in cold, mouldy State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, and in respect of the action the Government has taken, the Government has taken intensive and expensive action to reduce exactly the situation the member describes. The project for the reduction of rheumatoid arthritis has been all about finding the kids who come from those houses and either changing the houses or shifting them to a warm, dry house. The Government committed $60 million to $80 million to that, and the programme has been quite successful but has some way to go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it can be proven—as it can be—that none of his commitments and promises on housing have been kept, will he promise not to stand for the leadership come Monday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have laid out—the member may not have paid much attention—there has been a raft of measures taken on changing the housing market. We are dealing with the legacy of 30 years of wrong-headed planning, which was designed to stop Auckland growing. Under this Government, the economy is growing, Auckland is growing, and we need to change all the housing rules to accommodate all the people who want to live here.

Andrew Little: Does his management of the housing crisis have the confidence of his fellow Minister Judith Collins, or does he not want her support given he thinks she has “an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If we have had, as the Minister says, 30 years of planning failure, which Government was it that brought in the present legislation on the Resource Management Act (RMA)?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member would know the answer to that question because he was here right from the genesis of the RMA, under Sir Geoffrey Palmer, I think, and has almost certainly voted for more RMA amendments than anyone else in the House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need a little less interjection from both sides.

Andrew Little: Does he have confidence in Paula Bennett as a Minister, given that she misled the Prime Minister about non-existent Ministry of Social Development flying squads and launched a policy to move people out of Auckland without asking the Minister of Finance first?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for that as the Minister of Finance.

Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “I wouldn’t want to go for the leadership of the National Party again.”

Mr SPEAKER: It is questionable whether there is ministerial responsibility. I will allow the Minister, the Hon Bill English—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What is that?

Mr SPEAKER: I am saying it is questionable whether there is ministerial responsibility, but I will allow the Minister—[Interruption] Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, of course, but I now find myself in the rather unexpected position where the most successful Prime Minister in my lifetime has decided to leave at the top.

Employment and Skills Training—Progress and Government Initiatives

4. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government ensuring New Zealanders gain the skills needed in a growing economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Today I released a report from the Ministry of Education, which shows that the number of people starting industry training and apprenticeships grew by 11 percent last year. The credit completion rate rose from 69 to 74 percent, and the qualification completion rate is higher than it has ever been, at 53 percent. Industry training helps workers to keep their skills up to date, and provides employers with the skilled staff they need to grow their businesses. The report, which is New Zealand’s Workplace-based Learners, also shows that trainees are making progress through their training much more quickly than in previous years. This is a big change, for example, from 2009 when 59 percent of trainees gained no credits at all.

Sarah Dowie: What other steps is the Government taking to increase the number of people in apprenticeships?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last month I announced a new target of 50,000 people in training and apprenticeships by 2020, up from 42,000 people now. The report released today highlights that the number of people in apprenticeships grew by 12 percent over the last 2 years. In a strong economy more employers have the confidence to hire and train apprentices to meet their future skill needs. This target signals that we will back employers and industry training organisations as they grow their apprenticeship numbers further. We are backing that with a further investment of $10 million, and we have the capacity to add further places during the next year, if demand requires.

Sarah Dowie: How is the Government linking skills training to employment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last month the Hon Anne Tolley and I announced two further jobs and skills hubs in Auckland based on the successful Ara skills exchange at Auckland Airport. This is being run as a partnership between central and local government, businesses, tertiary providers, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, and industry training organisations. The hubs set up training facilities and services at the centre of big areas of work and construction where there are sizable projects with jobs and opportunities. These two will be based at the Wynyard Quarter and at Tāmaki, and they will give young people a pathway to employment in the construction sector, as well as onsite numeracy, literacy, and practical skills training. With the economy growing strongly and unemployment down, we have the opportunity to bring more young people who have been long-term unemployed into work, and that is what these hubs will do.

Health Services—Primary-care Funding and Access

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): My question is to the Minister of Health. I like his new suit too, and his new tie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And well you might, but that is not part of question time.

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he expect an estimated 533,000 New Zealanders who did not visit a GP due to cost in the last year to continue to wait for primary care reform which might “form part of a future Budget”, possibly under a different health Minister as stated by him?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No. GPs charge different rates, and people have the right to seek out a doctor whose combination of service, approach, and pricing is right for them. Furthermore, very good work is under way to continue to ensure that subsidies reach those most in need. In the meantime, here is some good news to cheer the member up: affordability of prescriptions and after-hours care for kids has been removed as an issue because of the fantastic free-for-under-13s policy, which started on 1 July last year. I thank the member for her continued support and advocacy for this policy.

Hon Annette King: Why should New Zealanders have to bear the burden of the $250 million accumulated shortfall in primary healthcare funding—leading to hundreds and thousands of sick people being unable to afford a doctor’s visit—because he is not an effectual Minister of Health, let alone any other role he might fancy?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh, well, I would leave that for the member to comment on. But, look, frankly, primary care funding is up $230 million under this Government to nearly $900 million, and there was a further $25 million in this Budget, so to make those claims of some missing amount is purely fiction.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked for a bit of cooperation on this side. If Mr Faafoi continues to interject, I will have to ask him to leave.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document provided to me today by the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) General Practitioner Council, showing the $250 million accumulated shortfall in primary care.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information from the NZMA. 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 Annette King: If he is capable of showing leadership, why does he not take responsibility for the growing number of failures in health—leading to headlines such as “Staff shortages”, “Forced closure of beds”, “Overworked doctors make mistakes”, “Surgeons fear for patient safety”, “Budget pressures unmanageable”—things that would never have happened under Tony Ryall?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, of course, we had a long discussion on failures in health last Thursday, and I am sure the member would not want to go there again, but the fact is that there was an extra $2.2 billion put into the health budget at the last Budget, and there is a clear record of continued rises in appointments, more operations, and 6,000 more doctors and nurses. The member struggles to name one single service that has not improved over the last 8 years, and that is the fact of it.

Hon Annette King: Is the reason the New Zealand Doctor magazine called him “Doctor Who”, “missing in action”, “To the bedside manor born”, and “aka Doc Martin” that he is too focused on his own career prospects rather than fixing the stuff-up in health, which is leading to people missing out on the care they need?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, maybe they call me that because I actually am a doctor. But, look, the fact is New Zealand Doctor says all sorts of things about all sorts of people. I want to tell you that they say some pretty interesting things about that member there as well.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Doctor magazine of 22 June this year, headed “To the bedside manor born”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It has been described. I will put the leave on the basis that it may not be readily available to members. Leave is sought to table that particular article. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Annette King: Has he got what it takes to be a leader when he ignores one of the biggest GP organisations, which says that it has brought the lack of access for New Zealanders to visit their GP to his attention, but his response to it was “That’s just rhetoric.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, of course, very low-cost access funding is a problem we inherited from Mrs King, but if she is so popular with GP leaders, I wonder why they did not send her an invitation to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners’ big launch on Thursday—or maybe she was just too busy to deal with it and turn up.

Earthquake, Kaikōura—Transport Infrastructure

6. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on repairing damage to transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government is making very strong progress. Work is continuing at pace to clear slips on State Highway 1 south of Kaikōura, with crews working hard to clear several large slips and rockfalls. We are making much better progress than expected, with the Transport Agency hoping to restore controlled single-lane access for residents and essential services by mid-December, but this will be dependent on weather and any further earthquakes. Restoring full access on State Highway 1 north of Kaikōura will take considerably more time to complete because the scale and complexity of the slips are unprecedented in New Zealand and the task ahead of us is huge.

Matt Doocey: What progress has been made on repairing and reinstating the inland road link to Kaikōura?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Again, the Government is making strong progress here. Crews have been working since the day of the earthquake from both ends of the inland route to clear the 50 large slips, inspect bridges, and get the road to a state where it can be used safely. Although the inland road is still fragile, good progress is being made and controlled access in and out of Kaikōura has now been established. The Transport Agency is working hard to have the inland road opened on a restricted basis to all vehicles in time for Christmas, but, again, this will be dependent on weather or any further earthquakes that could affect progress. My heartfelt thanks to all those men and women involved in their work on this piece of road.

State and Social Housing—Sale and Condition of Housing Stock

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by her statement, “look I can’t guarantee that”, when asked if anyone living in a car can go to a Government agency today and get a roof over their head tonight?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yes. However, I work hard every day, and I know front-line staff do as well, to help people who, for a variety of reasons, find themselves in the unexpected circumstance of needing an urgent roof over their head that day.

Phil Twyford: Is it not true that if Bill English had not taken half a billion dollars in dividends out of Housing New Zealand and had not reduced the number of State houses by 2,500, there would be a lot fewer families living in garages now?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, because we have put more money into social housing than certainly has been ever taken out in a dividend.

Phil Twyford: Why are she and Bill English focused on selling off more State houses in the middle of a housing crisis, when the Invercargill and Horowhenua sales have fallen through, respected social agencies like the Salvation Army and the Methodist Mission refuse to participate, and there is a homelessness crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Just yesterday the High Court ruled that the sales can go ahead in Tauranga so that sale will be proceeding. Actually, we are really interested in community housing providers building their asset base and playing an important role in social housing. As the member himself said in his speech a few years ago, this is what actual action looks like instead of just a sort of rhetoric of a speech that you can give.

Phil Twyford: Why does she continue to support selling off the State house that gave John Key the start in life to become Prime Minister when all the evidence shows that providing reliable State support is important to giving people the opportunity to one day be Prime Minister or one day to run for Deputy Prime Minister?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because those houses will stay in social housing, and, actually, the Government will still provide the subsidy to ensure—well, actually, it is part of the contract that it retains in social housing. The Government will continue to pay a high proportion of the rent, as it does now through subsidies, and actually increasing the number of people who own them through community housing providers is a good thing for those tenants.

Phil Twyford: Who is responsible—her or Bill English—for the fact that Housing New Zealand has wasted more than $21 million and has more than 500 houses lying empty because of incompetence in the testing for methamphetamine contamination?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There have been health and safety issues around meth-contaminated houses, and up till recently the only measure that they have had has been one that has been at 0.5, and a health one that is being dictated. We would like to see more houses available for those tenants quicker, but, at the end of the day, there are also contractors who need to clean them out and feel that they and the staff who are in them are safe. In fact, we have people saying that they want to move out of those houses because they are concerned about the contamination.

Phil Twyford: Does she think that her stuff-ups around flying squads that never existed, paying people to get out of town, and leaking personal information about Te Puea Marae chairman Hurimoana Dennis are the reasons why the Prime Minister does not have the confidence to name her as his successor?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think the fact that more than $350 million has gone into emergency housing in the last 18 months, the fact that we have got more than 3,000 new social houses in the pipeline and ones being opened every single week, the fact that we house more than 150 people each week off our wait-list, and the fact that New Zealanders now have hope—which they did not have under a previous Labour Government—that they will actually have a roof over their heads, and a Government that cares, speaks for itself.

Finance, Minister—Statements

8. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

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

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement in 2010 that his Government “welcome beneficial foreign investment and recognise the positive contribution it makes to New Zealand”; if so, how does that foreign investment in the housing market now look after the last 2 months’ correction in the market trend?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly stand by the statement. I am not quite sure what the member means about the question in relation to the housing market. The housing market in Auckland rose rapidly. It was always likely that at some point it would have to slow down, just because people could not afford to pay the kind of price multiples that they had been paying. I doubt that the relatively small flows of foreign investment make much difference to that.

Ron Mark: From his statement “… you’ve got very high levels of debt … and if interest rates rise sooner than expected, you’re going to be under pressure.”, can he enlighten the House as to the implications of an Auckland housing market that peaked in September and is now falling?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I would not give advice on that particular matter. We do not quite know what is going to happen with the Auckland housing market. This time last year it slowed, in a way that was a bit similar, and then it picked up the following March and April. We do not quite know how it will work out, but I do stand by the statement that those who have borrowed very large amounts of money relative to their income do need to keep in mind that interest rates can rise.

Ron Mark: What is his view of falling essential pre-sales commitments in apartment complexes taking up to 2 years to build, with increasing interest rates and the prospect of projects like this foundering and being abandoned?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: From a Government’s point of view, that is the operation of the market. People who are building apartments have taken risks. They have to get the support of their banks to be able to execute the building of those apartments. If they cannot, then someone else will get them a bit cheaper and probably finish them. That is the kind of adjustment you would expect to be happening in a market that has been running pretty hot.

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement on 28 May 2009 that “The Government is committed to maintaining National Superannuation entitlements at [26] per cent of the average wage, to be paid from [the] age [of] 65.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would just have to check exactly on the 26 percent, but that is what the Government has done.

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement on 4 October 2005 when he said “An implication of Treatyology is that citizenship can and should be divided to express a special status for Maori. This notion runs sharply counter to broad public support for the idea of ‘one law for all’.”; does he believe he has been true to that statement, or has he reneged?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Corrections, Facilities—New Prison Spending

9. DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement to this House that “having surpluses does not mean that the Government can go spending more money on ineffective public services or infrastructure that may not be needed”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I think that is what any reasonable person would say. The idea that because there are surpluses we should somehow go on a spend-up on social services is the wrong idea. The Government is focused very much on the effectiveness of existing spending, as well as closely targeting any new spending. We can make gains in our support for the most vulnerable in our community by being a great deal more thoughtful and focusing on results, not just on shovelling more money out, as the Greens seem to advocate.

David Clendon: How, then, does the Minister justify support for the Government’s commitment to spending $1 billion on a new prison, something he previously called a “moral and fiscal failure”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is unfortunate, but there is no choice in this case. The people who are going to be occupying those billion dollars’ worth of new prison beds are coming through the courts. They have been convicted and sentenced according to the law of the land, and if we do not get on and build the prisons there will be simply nowhere to put them. At the same time, we are developing an in-depth understanding of the drivers of the longer sentences, the kinds of crimes that are being committed, and the likelihood that people we could help better may end up on the path to crime. I would have to say if it were simple then we would have fixed it all already, but it is a bit complicated.

David Clendon: How can spending a billion dollars on a new prison be an effective use of public money and in line with his own goal of evidence-based practice, given the existing overwhelming evidence that sending more people to prison increases reoffending rather than reducing it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there was just a simple choice like that, then you would choose not to spend a billion dollars on prisons. But the fact is that the people who are going into those beds are people who have committed serious violent, sexual, or drug-related crimes, and they are being sentenced according to the laws passed by this Parliament. We simply have to build the beds, or there will be nowhere to put people who are potentially quite dangerous to our community. At the same time, the Government is focusing on improving rehabilitation and continuing to reduce the flow, particularly of younger people, into our court system.

David Clendon: How does the Minister plan to fund the inevitable future growth in prison population, which his Government’s current policies are creating?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, we want to use the social investment tools that have now been developed to reduce the future growth, but the fact is that if, according to the law of the land, the court has sentenced dangerous people to be locked up, then we will be locking them up.

Schools, Internet Access—N4L Managed Network

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Education: How is the Government helping students use the internet for learning?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): By making it available to them. Yesterday I was pleased to announce that we have completed connections to the $211 million N4L Managed Network project. This network provides schools with ultra-fast, uncapped, high-quality data, at no cost to schools, through the Government-funded internet. An event marking this milestone was held at Naenae College yesterday. Although I was unable to attend, the energetic, fresh, and future-focused Mr Bishop was representing us there, giving practical support to the Hutt’s self-described “technology valley”. By using the managed networks, schools and students across New Zealand can access the vast world of learning available online, to better prepare them to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving digital world. The roll-out of this core infrastructure provides a foundation for our ongoing work, such as incorporating digital technology into the curriculum from 2018, and reflects our Government’s absolute commitment to enabling 21st century learning to flourish—unlike the 19th century person over there.

Chris Bishop: What other information can the Minister provide on the completion of the N4L Managed Network project?

Tracey Martin: What does it stand for?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: To answer the member’s thirst for knowledge, N4L stands for Network for Learning. With the roll-out completed, all 2,446 eligible schools and kura are now able to connect, and 97 percent, or 2,431 schools and kura are already connected to the N4L network. More than 789,000 students and teachers are now using it. This has been a successful project, which involved a large-scale roll-out and was completed ahead of schedule and within budget. The network’s creation and roll-out has been part of this Government’s $700 million investment in digital infrastructure and connectivity. N4L’s focus will now turn to enhancing services and developing new platforms to help schools make the most of their digital connections—and the House erupted with applause! No, sorry, Mr Speaker.

Police Resourcing—Burglaries and Numbers

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she think there is any correlation between the closure of over 20 community policing centres and the 13,000 increase in victimisations in the last 12 months; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): The member is wrong. Community policing centres are not closing. Police announced a front-counter safety review last year in response to concerns raised by their own staff. I am sorry that that member does not take that seriously. This work was instigated following a very serious assault on a staff member in Counties Manukau. I am advised that 90 percent of the sites have been safety-assessed and that the remaining assessments will be completed by Christmas.

Stuart Nash: What is her response to the official police statistics that show burglaries are up by 18 percent in the last year, or almost 11,000 more victims, and the Police Association is describing the front line as being at “crisis point”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member has referred to the Police Association. I do not agree with some of the views of some of the former leaders of the association that burglaries are not important. I think they are very important. I think that the Police Commissioner, in making burglaries a priority offence, as they should always have been, has made exactly the right decision, and I utterly support him in it, which is why the police have committed to attend as many as they can, as in up to 100 percent of all domestic burglaries.

Stuart Nash: What is her message to the people of Canterbury, who have seen a 41 percent increase in burglaries and where some dairy owners are now saying they are closing up early just to avoid being robbed?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am here to say that help is on its way. Thank goodness it is a National-led Government, not a Labour one.

Stuart Nash: Does she believe that the Minister of Finance has given her all the funding she needs for the police to address the issues around increasing crime rates, falling resolution rates, and the state of the community policing centres?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We will soon see, will we not?

Stuart Nash: Does she agree with Anne Tolley when she said in question time last week that “I … judge a person by their actions, not their words.”; if so, after 6 months of promises, when is she going to deliver more police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There will be an announcement in due course, and the member should just wait.

Stuart Nash: When she said recently that any announcement about increased police numbers would be made by the Prime Minister, was she referring to herself?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that any announcement will be made by whoever is the Prime Minister, but I know this, it will not be anyone from that side of the House.

Women, Employment—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Women: How is the Government encouraging more young girls and women to pursue career opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and maths?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Women): The Government is making good progress in encouraging more students to gain qualifications in science, technology, engineering, and maths, or STEM. However, women are particularly under-represented in the highest growth areas, such as digital technology, so I have made it a priority to find new ways of sparking their interest. Today I have announced the launch of the STEM Directory, which is an online tool developed by the Ministry of Women that makes it easier for young girls and women to connect, discover, and learn about the opportunities, and ensure that women are not left behind in a constantly changing workforce.

Melissa Lee: What other work is under way to further support women and girls in education and training?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Ministry for Women is working across Government to ensure that women and girls have greater opportunities in high-demand areas. Ministry officials are working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to better understand the barriers to pursuing careers in the primary sector. Earlier, Minister Parata announced the opening of a new round of scholarships to encourage graduates wanting to become secondary teachers in STEM fields, and we are advancing work under the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) national science strategy, A Nation of Curious Minds, and through the Make the World public awareness campaign, to increase STEM graduates. Ultimately, though, it is about recognising and backing fantastic role models, like 25-year-old Kellie Hobbs, an offshore well engineer featured in today’s Taranaki Daily News. She is working with girls as young as 11 in workshops that are funded by MBIE through the Nation of Curious Minds fund, to show the next generation of women that they absolutely can, and must, succeed in STEM.

Speaker’s Rulings

Speaker—Ministerial Responsibility for Vote Parliamentary Service

Mr SPEAKER: On 1 December Ron Mark sought a considered ruling on whether the Speaker is a member of the Government for the purpose of appropriations to the Parliamentary Service. The request arose from my ruling on 29 November when I did not permit an urgent debate on the plan for a new parliamentary building on the basis that an urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible, and the Speaker is not part of the Government. Subsequently, I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on the matter.

The Speaker is deemed to be the “responsible Minister” for a number of agencies, including the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Service, and the three Offices of Parliament, for the purposes of the Public Finance Act 1989. That does not make the Speaker a member of the Government, however. Instead it is to provide some oversight of, and accountability for, the activities of agencies that form part of the legislative, rather than executive, branch.

The only way to become a Minister is to be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I refer members to chapter 2 of the Cabinet Manual. The Speaker, on the other hand, is elected directly by the House as its spokesperson and presiding officer.

The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible, according to Speaker’s ruling 207/2. The Speaker is not part of the Government and, in recognition of the special position of the Speaker as presiding officer, cannot take part in debate or answer oral questions in the House. I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 215/7, which states that a second call in an urgent debate always goes to a Minister so that the Minister speaking for the Government has an extra period to respond. There can be no question of the Speaker, elected by the House to speak for it, ever speaking for the Government.

The proposal for the new parliamentary building has not yet been finalised, and there is no appropriation to fund it. There will be ways to scrutinise the proposal if it receives Cabinet approval. The funding for the building project would be contained in the Estimates for Vote Parliamentary Service and could be examined in the House and select committee during the Estimates process. The proposed building will also continue to be discussed at the Parliamentary Service Commission, of which New Zealand First is a member. However, the urgent debate procedure is not available to debate matters for which the Speaker is responsible.

Urgent Debates

Rt Hon John Key—Announcement of Resignation as Prime Minister

Mr SPEAKER: I have received letters from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Andrew Little seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the announcement made by the Prime Minister that he would resign as Prime Minister on 12 December. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility.

Applications for urgent debate are required to be accompanied by authentication, and have been declined in the past because of a lack of authentication. I draw members’ attention to Speakers’ rulings 205/5 and 205/6. The application from Mr Peters was not accompanied by any authenticating—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! However, the purpose of authentication is to verify the facts in an application for an urgent debate, and to make out the case in support of it. In this instance, the facts of the matter are well known and hardly require authentication. I am prepared, on this occasion, to accept the application without authentication. The resignation of a Prime Minister is a very rare occurrence and is deserving of the urgent attention of the House.

Mr Peters’ application for the urgent debate on the matter was the first one received. I, therefore, call on the Rt Hon Winston Peters to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This would be an urgent debate on the first occasion after an event has taken place. The event has not taken place. The Prime Minister has indicated an intention but has not resigned.

Mr SPEAKER: The announcement has taken place, and that is the matter that is important here.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Being the Prime Minister of a country is an achievement, and holding that position for 8 years is a significant feat. So let us begin this debate by remembering that and thanking the Prime Minister for his service to the country. We wish him and his family well.

Whenever a Prime Minister leaves the stage, we glance back to consider what has been achieved. He has been rated by the media as one of our most popular Prime Ministers. There is no doubt that he had that teflon factor that many of his peers will be coming to envy very soon. But no matter what side of the political spectrum one comes from, many ordinary New Zealanders have been able to relate to him. From the State house in Bryndwr to the ninth floor of the Beehive, it is something that John Key aspired to from the days when he was a young boy, and he can be proud of that.

As a politician he became an astute pragmatist, plotting his moves with his eyes fixed firmly on the polls, which the National Party takes every 3 days. The question that, as time passes, people will ponder is: so what really is his legacy? Is New Zealand in as good a shape as he told us yesterday, or is the reality something very different?

Well, take housing: what has been the legacy on housing? Eight years ago he campaigned on a four-point plan to solve what he called “the housing affordability crisis”. He talked of “the enormity of the problem” and that it was the second-worst housing affordability problem in the whole wide world. He said in 2007 that the housing crisis had got worse, and that the crisis would only deepen. In 2007 he promised to deliver as PM and build more houses. He got his chance, became Prime Minister, and had 8 years to fix it.

So what is the record? Eight years later the housing crisis has seriously worsened. A recent report said that one in seven houses in Auckland is being bought by speculators who already own five or more properties. In most cases, they have taken these homes at the expense of Kiwis looking for their first home. In spite of all the denials from National, the massive flood of immigration into Auckland and offshore buying have shut out New Zealanders and sent the price of housing straight into orbit. The average price for a house in Auckland went beyond $1 million. There have been some corrections later but the reality has not changed. A generation of New Zealanders is growing up and will never, ever own their own homes. For them, the Kiwi Dream of homeownership has been shattered. They have faced the dreary prospect of being renters for life. That is the housing legacy.

And on State houses—well, with 40,000 homeless, families living in cars, and pensioners scraping by in camp grounds, the Government started selling off thousands of State houses. The latest sell-off will be 2,500 State houses in Christchurch—going on right now while we have got massive homelessness in this country. Now the same city where our Prime Minister grew up in a State house has got 2,500 being sold. Rather than selling, the Government should be keeping State houses, upgrading them, and building more. But it is not. Again, that is its State housing legacy.

And on poverty: over the last 8 years poverty has become more entrenched and more apparent, with family poverty frequently wrongly described as child poverty, as some sort of diversion. It is families that are poor in this country, not children; it is families. Under Mr Key’s leadership, poverty has become more entrenched.

And when those people say “Be generous; he’s retiring.”, I want them to look at that homelessness and those people out of work, in despair, with no chance in this country’s future, in poor families, and ask what they would think. We now have 220,000 New Zealand children, or 21 percent of those under the age of 17, living in poverty. At Tautoro School in Kaikohe, the number being fed by the school has doubled in the last 4 years, from 15 to 20, to now up to 45 pupils out of a total roll of 75, and Tautoro School is not unique in this country. Again, that is another part of the legacy for those who care about a balanced, fair assessment.

On youth unemployment: there are 75,000 young New Zealanders who are not in employment, education, or training. Seventy-five thousand. You want to talk about a legacy? This is what the next election is going to be about. If you want to believe shonky, puffery polls, you go on believing them, but that is what the next election is going to be about. Seventy-five thousand—a ticking time bomb that, in the last 8 years, has never been addressed.

To make matters worse, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have been allowed into this country. Many of them are on student visas and are entitled to work. It has driven down wages. It has seen some appalling abuse of work conditions, illegal hours, under - minimum wage payments, wide-scale corruption of export education, and 20-hour work visa conditions breached all the time. All of this has made it difficult for young New Zealanders to find jobs—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop reading the speech.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop reading your speech; say what you really think. Stop reading it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I am telling you what I really think, Mr Brownlee, because, unlike you, some of us people in this country are concerned—nothing to do with you, Mr Speaker—enough to do something about it. Not get our snout in the trough—not get our four feet and snout in the trough and think that is where life stops. Oh no, and what they are going to do about it—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He’s up to the elbows in the trough.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —is get rid of you. That is the first thing they are going to do—get rid of him. That degradation in the workforce and the absolute abandonment of fair play amongst the young coming to this country in the workforce—it is a disgrace; it is a legacy.

On the economy, claimed to be a rock star miracle: well, lately a number of economists have described it as nothing like that, but as a mirage. For the year ended—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A mirage is mainly about your lifestyle. For the year ended June 2016, New Zealand’s current account deficit ran at $7.4 billion. Net international investment position: well, we owe the rest of the world a negative $163 billion. They claim our GDP growth rate is 3.5 percent. That is bulldust, because you have got a 2 percent population growth, and before you start you have got to extract that from your so-called projections. So what is your growth rate? It is 1.6 percent, which is the OECD average. Stop misleading people with rubbish, and I wish some journalists would get themselves a basic understanding of fundamental economics, because when you are talking about the GDP growth rate you have to factor in your population growth. Every idiot knows that, except some whom I cannot name because I am too nice a person to do so. Without this adjustment for the population growth, the numbers are totally deceptive. Again, that is the real legacy.

On the other things: the flag referendum—$26 million needlessly frittered away on a referendum, on a great splash of advertisements, and on the Flag Consideration Panel going to ridiculous meetings at empty halls up and down the country. Even today, the retiring Prime Minister said that he had a hope that that would be his legacy. In this case, there is a flag legacy, belonging to someone else in a different age.

Then the Government hitched its wagon to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) and it railroaded the law through this Parliament to welcome its arrival. And it has all crashed, as New Zealand First said it would in February of this year. We said it in February of this year. We also said that Donald Trump was going to win, so stop wasting people’s money and time. Oh no, they cannot listen. They have got all these experts who know a lot about everything, until he comes to say: “When did they get their forecasts right?”. Millions were spent on the TPPA to achieve absolutely nothing. Put it alongside the Korean free-trade deal, which is heavily biased against New Zealand producers, with tariffs of 176 percent. This is not a legacy.

On the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendment legislation: they did a deal between the Government and the Māori Party to push the RMA changes through, and that has been an absolute disaster. National chose iwi over Kiwi. His Government has forced parallel, unelected, race-based control on this country. In its planning and consent laws—and as more New Zealanders learn about this, whether Māori or European, they will come to bitterly resent this legacy, which some other Government is going to have to fix up.

So what is his place in history? Well, let us be fair here. He has done better than many. But this is not Seddon, Savage, and it ain’t Holyoake—before some of these commentariat, who do not seem to remember even what happened yesterday, think he is up in that league. Look at the fundamentals. There are serious storm clouds gathering: the decline in manufacturing, the decline in exports against GDP. There are millions of people in this country who are disillusioned, and even National supporters are beginning to think twice. At the Tauhei Hall, 16 kilometres from Morrinsville, on Sunday night, we got 220 people out, in a country place that has got no shop but just a school.

Pita Paraone: How many?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: 220. I know there is a sea change, whether those members know it or not, and this sea change, which you saw in the UK, which you saw in the early elections in Australia, and which you saw in the United States, is sweeping—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you didn’t.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, I did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s rubbish.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did. I looked around you—not easy to do—and I saw it. I saw it, and I said so; not after the event, Mr Brownlee, but beforehand. I mean real signs, not shonky polls, which were so badly exposed by Brexit.

But you have got to give it to Mr Key. A bit like Kenny Rogers—you got to know when to hold ’em, you got to know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. He saw the bells tolling. He saw those polls, as we have seen them, and he decided: “We’ll leave it to people like Gerry. I don’t want to be around” he said, “when it all falls apart next year.”

That said, I wish Mr Key—and so do my colleagues—well in his future, knowing with total confidence that his successor will be as worried about his legacy as New Zealand First is.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): That contribution was untypically graceless from that member, Winston Peters. He is a member who understands the traditions and—actually, often at times he has been one of the more polite and understanding members of this House when it has really mattered. I would have thought that on this occasion, the first time in, what, a hundred years that a Prime Minister has voluntarily decided to resign the job—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Holyoake went.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, Holyoake was under a pressure that John Key has never been under—never been under. I would have thought the member might be slightly more generous. But he was not, and, actually, that is the difference between him and John Key. John Key would rather work hard and strive for a better country; that member works hard and strives for a bitter country. A better country or a bitter country—and it could not be more exemplified than by that contribution.

The other difference is this: the Prime Minister, who has announced his resignation but not yet resigned, has always believed you get the best from people with confidence, not with divisiveness—with confidence, not with division. That member should acknowledge today that he could have learnt a few political lessons. There was a time when he could fill a stadium in the Trump manner—it is just that that was a long time ago.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: In a small stadium.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, it was the Tauranga Racecourse, to be fair, and it was a big crowd, and then they were ready for him. But John Key has had the impact of changing the way New Zealand politics works, and his legacy is not the tirade of bitterness that the member thought was appropriate for this occasion—I actually do not think the member believed most it—his legacy is actually the opportunity he has left for this country to achieve so much in the next 5 to 10 years. [Interruption] What state is it in? Of course, there are intractable social problems—

Andrew Little: Oh, intractable. Oh, you don’t claim responsibility.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They have proven to be so in the past—as the members opposite were in Government and spent billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money trying to deal with those difficult social problems such as youth unemployment. But under John Key’s leadership, with the fresh thinking, with the almost unpolitical way he has approached those problems, this Government has developed a tool kit that will allow us over the next 5 or 10 years to finally get a grip at an individual and personal level on the kinds of social challenges that the member outlined. In that sense we agree. Of course there are social challenges. The question is: who has got a fresh view on those old social challenges? John Key did and still does, remarkably, after 10 years as a party leader and 8 years as a Prime Minister.

The member also referred to this odd argument that economic growth should not count people—that if more people want to live in your country that is a problem for economic growth. It is not. Of course if you say “If we take away all the things that make the economy grow, it’s not growing.”—that is true. But, actually, the member may recall that he—and certainly his colleagues in Opposition—campaigned for quite some time that not enough people wanted to live in New Zealand. So they have to answer this question: do they believe that it is better to have people leaving the country, because that drives up per capita GDP, or do they believe it is better that our children prefer to live here, as they have amply demonstrated under the stewardship of Prime Minister John Key?

Just to give a sense of the magnitude of that: in 2012 there was a net outflow of 39,000 people to Australia. That is actually bigger than the number of seats in the stadium where the Prime Minister did the election ad. Last year there was an inflow of 2,000. That is, from my point of view, one of the lasting legacies of John Key. He persuaded New Zealanders with his confidence and his leadership that this could be a country where their children would want to stay and make a living and raise a family. In fact, we keep thinking that the tide must turn, but it has not—but it has not.

So I can quote all sorts of economic figures about where the economy has got up to, but the measure of his legacy is that our children, our families now think when they look at the rest of the world that this is a place where they have more confidence that they can realise more of their aspirations. [Interruption] You know, that is the difference in this House: we are in favour of growth and everyone else is against it. That is pretty much how it is unwinding.

I just want to take the opportunity to make a few comments not just on the Prime Minister’s legacy but on his way of being a politician, his way of working with other people. I must say that the way he has conducted his exit from his position illustrates the graciousness and the consideration that he has shown every single day that I have worked with him as a deputy leader and a Deputy Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who, despite the enormous pressures of the job, is always able to turn up to work and deal with people in a confident and cheerful manner, always in a positive manner, always in a considerate manner, and is always polite. The way he dealt with people he met on the campaign trail is the way he has dealt with his colleagues every single day that he has held office, with just a few days left to go.

That has been at the core of his other major achievement—and that is stable and trusted Government. The Opposition members might laugh at that, but in the world as we know it, stable and trusted Government is becoming increasingly rare. We are one of the few countries where that is now the case, and an important part of that achievement of stable and trusted Government has been the integrity of the Prime Minister and his ability to ensure that the Government remained cohesive, that the relationships in it were positive, and that it could continue to make the decisions that are necessary to take the country forward.

So the Prime Minister will not in any way be belittled by the comments of the Opposition. He never let that bother him. And, actually, it does not matter what Winston Peters or Andrew Little say today; it will be as irrelevant as the things they said for the whole 8 years he was Prime Minister. It made no difference. Despite political obsession with John Key—known as “Key Derangement Syndrome”—these amazing political machines never laid a finger on him, never knocked him off track, never brought him down, and never distracted him from the task of achieving what was best and right for New Zealanders.

In that context—that is, the Prime Minister’s performance in the bear pit of politics—he had no equal. [Interruption] Well—he had no equal. OK, so the Labour Party talks about Helen Clark. John Key beat Helen Clark by a long way in an election, and, actually, the Labour Party has not ever recovered from it. In the bear pit of politics the Prime Minister showed that he had the strength and the direction to maintain the position of Government, maintain the trust of the people, and, ultimately, to leave the country in a much, much better state than he found it, despite the challenges that he had to deal with.

Finally, the measure of the Prime Minister and his legacy is that he has left a team in great shape. We have seen what has happened to political parties when leaders stay too long. The Prime Minister has left this talented, energised team with a clear sense of direction, and the best way to fulfil his legacy is to build on those achievements.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister and aspiring Prime Minister about one thing, at least, and that is that on the occasion of the resignation of the Prime Minister it is appropriate to be generous in one’s offerings about not only the departing Prime Minister but one’s colleagues in Parliament. But the aspiring Prime Minister could not even do that. It did not take long for Mr English to descend into the usual bitter, angry, nasty tirade that he is reputed for.

In answer to the question “What do Governments most fear?”, Harold Macmillan said: “Events, dear boy, events.” Yesterday we had an event, and today we have seen the faces of the Government, and they are in fear. They are in fear. They do not know what is going to happen, they do not know who is going to win, and they do not know what the outcome is going to be. So on the occasion of the resignation of the Prime Minister, who has served for 8 years, let us acknowledge that that is a significant event: constitutionally, politically, and in a variety of other ways. Let us accept that serving in high public office is tough. Let us also recall that having checks and balances in our constitutional system is meant to constrain, and that being under daily, if not hourly, scrutiny is meant to enlighten and call to account. That is our system. That is what makes it tough—and it is tough.

It is right, sometimes, to put political differences aside and say to a political opponent: “Thank you for the service that you have given to our country.” It is not for me to conduct some sort of panegyric; that is for the historians—the real historians—who will have the benefit of the distance of time at some point in the future to decide what John Key’s legacy is and how that has served New Zealand. I just say that it is right for the House to acknowledge the leadership that John Key has given over the last 8 years. But right now, in the present circumstances, who replaces John Key is a question for only the National Government members. They sit over there; it is their choice. It is not necessarily what New Zealanders expected. They expected that having elected a party to Government with a Prime Minister, he would serve out the full term, but now that is a matter entirely in the hands of the National caucus.

One thing remains unchanged throughout all of this, and that is that too many New Zealanders are still missing out. John Key was quoted in a Listener article in June this year as saying that voters only really care about four things: health, education, law and order, and the economy. So let us have a look at health, education, law and order, and the economy, because the track record ain’t that flattering.

When we have a look at health, $1.7 billion was cut, effectively, from the health budget: the health budget that has failed to keep up with population growth and a changing population profile; the 45,000, mainly elderly, New Zealanders last year alone, who were told by their GPs: “You need hospital treatment, skedaddle up there quickly, get up to your hospital, and get your treatment done.” They turned up to their local hospital, and the hospital said: “We can’t afford to treat you.” That is what they were told—45,000 New Zealanders who needed hips replaced, knees done, and other minor surgeries. We have a health system that can no longer afford to treat New Zealanders when they need it. We have got surgeons now being told by their hospital management: “Don’t do follow-up appointments.” What is that about? How can you have surgery and not have a follow-up appointment to see how it is going, to see whether there is an infection, and to see whether you need other treatment? That is the state of health in New Zealand today, and it ain’t good enough.

That was health—what about education? Well, what we have seen now is a freeze on education funding. Schools are struggling to do the job we expect of them, struggling to give our kids a chance to succeed in a rapidly changing world. We saw the report last week, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study report, that sees New Zealand going backwards: larger class sizes, more pressure on teachers, and—would you believe—a freeze in funding. How does that happen with a Government that says to New Zealanders that it is committed to a brave new world of the future but will not give a chance, will not give opportunity, to young New Zealanders when they need it?

So what about law and order? At a time of the most rapidly growing population in New Zealand, and at a time when crime is rising—now 2 years in a row, with burglaries, assaults, robberies, and serious crime—we have a freeze on police numbers. We have declining police morale. How does that work in a country that is on the cusp of something special?

Then there is the economy. How is it that in this great economy of ours, which the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister says is now burgeoning and doing well, one out of every five wage and salary earners—get that, one out of five—earns only enough to mean that more than 50 percent of their income goes on either paying their rent or the mortgage. That is how expensive the cost of living has become. That is why so many families are struggling—working families, people out there toiling away, trying to get every hour of work they can: terrified when they have to renew the warrant of fitness because they are terrified they might have to replace the tyres or the brake linings; terrified when that winter power bill comes because they do not know how many hundreds of dollars bigger it is than the summer ones. That is the lived existence of too many New Zealand families these days. That is not a successful economy. That is not success for New Zealand.

Labour has a plan and Labour is ready. Labour has a plan for New Zealand. We are going to build houses. For all those New Zealanders who do not have their own roof over their heads—the 41,000 homeless—Labour has a plan. For the thousands of young couples who cannot afford to buy their own home, Labour has a plan: we are going to put you in a home; you are going to be able to afford to buy your own home. For the parents wondering how much more they are going to have to fork out for their kids at school, we have got a plan: we are going to restore that funding for education and we are going to have an education system that is modern, fit, and equipped for the modern world.

Labour has a plan for health, and it is about restoring that funding. We will not be able to do it straight away, but we will, over time, put back that funding—so that if you are elderly and your hips have given out and you cannot walk and you cannot do the shopping, we will give you a chance. You will get your hip operation. You will live a decent life, a dignified life, because that is what New Zealand stands for. Labour has a plan.

We have a plan for law and order. We will put more police on the beat. We are going to put an extra 1,000 cops over 3 years, and New Zealanders will feel safe in their communities again. That is our pledge. We have costed it out; we can do it. The Government could do it now. I am going to give you a bet—I am prepared to put money on it—that between now and the next election the next Prime Minister, whomever that may be, will announce that they will put more cops on the beat, because they know they have got it wrong. The truth is this is a Government that is out of touch, arrogant, and tired. It has lost touch; it does not know what to do any more. Everything it does now is responding to Labour’s plan to lift New Zealand and make it better.

Here is the thing. We are a country that has always celebrated the chance for its people to get ahead. When you do the right thing, when you work hard and you pay your taxes the least you expect is the Government to be there to back you, to make sure you can have a roof over your head; that if you cannot afford to buy one, that if you cannot afford to rent one, there is a Housing New Zealand house there for you—not being sold down the river by the current Minister responsible for Housing New Zealand.

We are a country that believes that if you do all the right things we will have an education system there that will make sure that your kids are prepared for success. We are a country that believes that if you want a chance to get ahead—to do well, to work well—we will have a health system that is there to make you get better when you fall sick. That is what we stand for. That is what New Zealand is about.

We are a land of opportunity; we have always celebrated that, but for far too many New Zealanders, that opportunity is going. We can do better, and Labour is about a better New Zealand. It is about harnessing the resources of Government, of backing our people, of backing them in their dreams and their ambitions for themselves, their children, their families, and for their communities. Labour is about stronger families and better communities. That is what we are going to go to the country on next year.

Labour has a plan, and Labour is ready. We have known this was going to come. We have been prepared for this. It does not matter when the election is; we have a plan for New Zealand. New Zealand deserves better, they are going to get better, and New Zealand is going to be a great country with Labour backing hard-working Kiwis every step of the way.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): John Key, the retiring Prime Minister, never put children and families first. At every opportunity John Key refused to put the needs of families and children ahead of the interests of the wealthy few. This is actually the legacy of John Key. I am surprised by Bill English’s response tonight in this debate, because there are thousands and thousands of New Zealand families who know that they are doing worse than ever under the leadership of John Key and the National Party. For 8 years John Key has had an opportunity to turn life around for the families who need him the most. At every point he has refused to help them.

Let us not forget that the first thing he did when he became Prime Minister was to give tax cuts to the rich. That was his first decision. It was to give tax cuts to the very richest families in this country—leaving working families who were subject to the harms caused by the global financial crisis right out of the picture. It was the rich who did the best out of John Key when he first took the prime ministership, and it is still the rich who are doing the best from John Key 8 years later. The families and children of hard-working New Zealanders were left out by John Key and left out by this National Government.

New Zealand, the only way we can put families and children at the heart of Government decisions is to change the Government in 2017. Because even though John Key has gone and his leadership is now over, the National Party continues with that evil programme that denies the rights of families and children to a decent life in this country. It has been shameful watching John Key make decisions that leave families and kids out in the cold.

John Key was heard saying this morning that New Zealand is largely the envy of the world—the envy of the developed world in terms of job creation and job growth. No, it is not. No, it is not for the New Zealanders who live here who are struggling to pay their rent and put food on the table and pay their power bills. This is the reality for thousands of New Zealand children. They are not envious. This is a shameful legacy that John Key leaves us. There are so many things that could have happened under John Key’s leadership that he ignored because New Zealand families and their children were never at the core of his decision making.

I would like to deal with the issue of children going hungry at school. It was scandalous and it is still scandalous that thousands of New Zealand children are still going to school hungry and are hungry at school because we do not have a comprehensive school food programme in our schools. When I asked John Key about that today in question time his excuse was that there is a programme and there has been a bit of Government support for it. There are still hungry children at school, so what about them?

Hon Anne Tolley: Seven million breakfasts.

METIRIA TUREI: So some are getting fed, and what about the ones who are not? What about the ones who are not getting fed and are still hungry? Do they count, for John Key? Do they matter to John Key? Or is he happy that only some kids are getting fed in this country and some are still hungry? That is what is happening for thousands of New Zealand children. They are still hungry at school because John Key and National would not support a comprehensive food in schools programme. They had the choice. They had the money to commit to that, but there are still thousands of children who are left out. These are the choices of this Prime Minister. That is his legacy.

What about the children who are still being admitted to New Zealand hospitals because of the illnesses that they suffer from cold, damp, mouldy houses? What about the 40,000 hospitalisations of New Zealand children because John Key and the National Government refuse to put in place a warrant of fitness to warm up, to dry out these homes for these kids? What about the 15 children who die every year under John Key’s leadership because they live in cold, damp, mouldy houses—houses that John Key and his Government could have fixed; houses that could be safe for those kids and their families to live in? Did those kids matter to John Key and the National Government? No, they did not. Nothing has changed that will protect those families and those 15 children.

This is the legacy of John Key, the retiring Prime Minister. Despite all of the rhetoric and all of the lovely stories we are going to hear about John Key from lots of different places, this is the actual impact of John Key being Prime Minister for 8 years and the National Government being in Government for these 8 years. This is why we have to change the Government. We cannot allow National to continue with the reins of power and with the financial resources and have it divert those resources and use that power for the wealthy few when our families and our kids are suffering every day.

What about the 40,000 New Zealanders who are homeless? What about them today? What about the families and the children who tonight will be sleeping in their cars? Where do they fit in John Key’s legacy? That is who he is leaving behind when he finishes. Those families are being left behind by John Key. Earlier today he talked a lot about housing policy. There are still thousands of New Zealand families who are homeless, who are sleeping in garages, who are sleeping in their cars, and who are sleeping in motor camps in caravans that are in appalling conditions—cockroaches, damp, and mould. Those families matter. Those kids and those families matter. They are important citizens of this country too, and they deserve better from John Key.

What did he spend his time on? Giving Skycity Casino the opportunity to put in place more gambling machines so it could make more money—that is what John Key spent his time on. Defending the dirty Saudi sheep deal—that is what John Key spent his time on. The tax cuts for the very wealthy is what he spent his time on. Keeping foreign trusts going in New Zealand is what John Key spent his time on, to enable the very wealthy to hide their money—those things were his priorities. We only need to look back over the last 8 years and see for ourselves the legacy that John Key leaves.

It is time now in New Zealand that we take back the reins of Government and put in place a Government that will put families and children at the heart of the decisions that it makes. If we are not here to fight for and work for them, what is the point? I am glad John Key is going. Good—he should go. He has not been a good Prime Minister. He has left these families to fend for themselves. He has had the resources and the opportunity to make a real difference and he chose not to. Good. Go. And take the rest of them with you because this is not a Government that puts New Zealanders at the heart of its decisions.

In 2017 the Greens will be part of a new Government that will put children and their families at the heart of every decision it makes. That is what we will do. That is why we are saying: “New Zealanders, we have to change the Government. Losing John Key is not enough. They all have to go. You’ve got 6 months—8 months—let’s make it happen.” Those kids need us; they certainly do not need National.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): This is a special debate called for by the Opposition parties so that they might debate the occasion and the circumstances of the decision by the Rt Hon John Key to resign as Prime Minister, effectively next Monday, and for there to be new leadership in the National Party and, therefore, as Prime Minister as well. So it seems a little bit odd, having decided that they would request this time of the House, for these parties to then spend it trying to push policies that have been roundly rejected in the last 8 years, through two elections—three elections in fact—by voters in New Zealand. Why would we ever imagine that it would be a good use of the House’s time to debate the policies of the 2008, 2011, and 2014 elections all over again? That is the problem with the Opposition in this country: they have no moment where they are in the present.

That speech from Metiria Turei was nothing but nasty garbage that is not even slightly reflective of how New Zealanders see the performance of the current Government—let alone the status that they hold John Key in and the way in which they consider him to be a great leader for this country.

They went on about so many different things that it is hard to cover them all; I will try to cover some. But I make the point that if an Opposition is going to go from being an Opposition into Government, then it should stop insulting 50 percent of the voters who do not think that they are up to it and start trying to persuade 50 percent of the voters that they can offer something a little more hopeful than the dismal rubbish that we have had pouring out of Winston Peters, Metiria Turei, and Andrew Little this afternoon.

Let us just look at a few of these things. Firstly, that rambling speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters: if that was not a request for an urgent transfer to a retirement home, I do not know what it was. That was the sort of rose-coloured nostalgia that worked for Mr Peters 20 years ago. It does not reflect [Interruption]—not in New Zealand. That is one of the things that New Zealand First is going to have to come to terms with in the next several months if it is going to be anywhere near competitive in the next election. It is that moving on, that recognising the situation of today and finding solutions for today and for tomorrow that John Key has been so very good at.

When Mr English spoke he talked about the Prime Minister’s relentless optimism. I have never seen him anything other than optimistic about the future of this country. I have never seen him daunted by a problem that this country has, but I have seen him apply himself and demand the same rigour of others in his ministry to solving some of those problems. So when Metiria Turei talks about poverty in this country—where were the Greens for 9 years when the Labour Government did not lift benefit income for any poor New Zealander? That took a John Key Government to do that. Where were they around things like the family tax credit? No—they were opposed to it. Where were they around all of the various types of job creation that comes from expanding trade or that comes from freeing up the way in which people can do business? Nothing. We had high unemployment in 2008, we had an economy that was in severe trouble in 2008, and we had interest rates for people who were in houses in 2008 topping 10.5 percent. And that, apparently, was good for poor people. That was a disgrace that that can be offered as any kind of recipe going forward for the coming election.

That brings me also to the proposition that Andrew Little put out there: saying Mr Key has failed to house New Zealanders. Well, we have never seen the likes of housebuilding in New Zealand at any time compared with what we have got now. That is a programme that is not propped up by some sort of mad Government scheme that says “subsidise, subsidise, subsidise”. It is a programme that enables people to get hold of land, allows building companies to go ahead and do those subdivisions, and is backed by finance packages that people can avail themselves of. In the end it is all about supply; no one disagrees with that. But how that supply is created is crucially important. The once-proud Labour Party claimed, through Michael Joseph Savage, that homeownership was the big deal, and having a home was a big deal. Nowadays it is only if the Government—according to them—lets you have it. That will not be a recipe that New Zealanders will be impressed with in the coming months.

I also want to make reference to the idea that incomes are going to rise should there be a Labour Government. One thing John Key has done throughout his tenure as Prime Minister is say that if we want basic incomes in this country to rise, then there has to be the economic incentive for jobs to be created and for good wages to be paid. That has meant the relentless pursuit of trade deals. It has meant taking regulation out of our business activities. It has meant finding new markets and encouraging people to diversify the economy. When we had, just these last couple of years, the dairy price falling away, what was the impact on the New Zealand economy? Dreadful as it was for some farmers it did not tip our economy up, because of that diversification and because of that relentless focus on trying to raise incomes for New Zealanders.

At a basic level, every year the minimum wage was raised under a John Key Government. It never happened for 9 years under Labour. Where was New Zealand First? Where were the Greens? And where were the Labour backbenchers while their Ministers were refusing to raise incomes for the poorest of New Zealanders? This is the record of John Key. He is a very compassionate man, and a very pragmatic man. He knows what it is like to grow up in a household that is not advantaged. He knows what it is like to see others with more but he has never let that get in the way of his drive to improve himself, his family’s lot, and to desire that for all New Zealanders as well.

We heard them say that under Labour education will be completely free—completely free. I think we heard that from Labour during the 1980s when it introduced the fees for students in tertiary education. I think we heard it from Labour when it said Tomorrow’s Schools would be some kind of nirvana: where you just walk in the gate, you get conferred with qualifications, and you walk out for a wonderful life.

This is a Government that has focused on educational achievement. John Key said to his Cabinet: “We cannot have young people who cannot read and write. We cannot have young people who have problems with numeracy. We have to have a better focus.” So through successive education ministries, his Ministers, and his particular commitment to that portfolio, we see the Programme for International Student Assessment results today coming out—those international comparisons for literacy, numeracy, etc.—and New Zealand is once again on the rise. That is a bit of a turn-around—a significant turn-around, in fact—from where we were just a few years ago—

Chris Hipkins: That’s not true.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and largely due to the fact that a Government has a right to demand standards in education.

Sue Moroney: It started sliding under this Government, Gerry. It was going up under Labour.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is what has happened, and the beneficiaries are young children. What we have got over there are all sorts of claims about “Oh, it’s not good.”, “Don’t listen to the stats.”, and “Blah, blah, blah.”, but if it suits them, they will use statistics against us any time. I think they need to just have a bit of a look at that particular portfolio, because their record is not tidy.

Finally, let me just deal with health. There have never been more people getting healthcare when they need it in this country than there are now. There has never been a time when the commitment to healthcare dollars has been as strong as it is at the moment. Mr Key has, once again, been making sure that although there is this focus on having a sound economy that can provide jobs—that will provide bigger incomes for people—he is still insisting that this Government spent in core social services.

His legacy is a remarkable one: he will be in history, I am sure, recorded as one of the great Prime Ministers of this country; he is most definitely one of the greatest leaders of the National Party. Although he has now decided to exit the stage, the scene that he has set and the culture that he has put in place will endure, and the fundamentals of what has been achieved under his ministry, his prime ministership, will continue, and will be well regarded and well received by New Zealanders in the coming year.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): There has been a lot said in this debate about John Key’s legacy and what it will be, and I think that in itself is quite telling: that people have to discuss and debate and decide what John Key’s legacy as Prime Minister of this country for 8 years will be. It is strange, because there is nothing that stands out over those 8 years that will be a legacy for John Key as Prime Minister. Great Prime Ministers are remembered in history. John Key will not be remembered in history. He does not have a legacy. He does not have any great thing that he has done, and I challenge any member on that side of the House—or this, come to that—to name two great things that John Key has done in his 8 years as Prime Minister that will go down in history and that will leave him as a household name the likes of Savage, the likes of Holyoake. He is not a man of that ilk.

We have been criticised in this corner of the House for being, perhaps, less gracious than some other speakers in noting the departure of a man who has spent 8 years in the top job. I think the response has been appropriate. In 2008, when John Key came to power, I voted for him. I was not a member of New Zealand First in those days. I had sat through the Helen Clark years and been so tragically disappointed that, having grown up as a Social Crediter, I changed my allegiance to National because I felt it offered hope. I listened to John Key on the hustings and I listened to what National was saying and I thought it offered a great change and a great hope for New Zealand, for the future, for me, and for my kids. I was so sorely disappointed with what was delivered that I joined New Zealand First, and here I am. Because there is a party in this House that says the things that the National Party of old used to say, and it is New Zealand First. There is a great leader in this House who will be remembered through history, and that is Winston Peters.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

RICHARD PROSSER: You may laugh now, but change is sweeping the world. We have seen great upsets. In Canada the Liberal Party went from being a third party to being a majority Government. In the UK Brexit triumphed. In the United States Trump has triumphed. And at every turn they have confounded the pundits and confounded the pollsters. It has been the real people who have spoken up and spoken out. In the election coming next year that is what will happen in New Zealand, and John Key knows it. He has seen the writing on the wall. He has seen the juggernaut approaching. He has seen the size of the dead rat that he would have to swallow, and he cannot stand that size, and he is not going to do it.

He is a trader first and foremost. The man is a trader. He knows when to buy; he knows when to sell. He knows that for him this is the time to sell; this is the time to get out. He is cutting and running while it is a good time for him. You can say anything you like. Members on the other side can say anything they like about it being a strategic decision. They can say that he is leaving a party in good shape. At the end of the day he is leaving the party, and he is leaving it 2 weeks out from the Christmas break. He is leaving it, effectively, 6 months of campaigning with a new leader, coming into an election when its popularity has peaked, when it is on the slide, and when the chickens are going to come home to roost.

We know this in New Zealand First because we talk to the people. The Rt Hon Winston Peters fills halls up and down this country—220 in Tauhei last night. We had 300 in Rangiora, 350 in Levin, and 220 in Gore. You never hear about that in the mainstream media, but you know when you are there, and you hear about it from people who were there, and you read about it on social media. That is what people are saying around the country right now. That is the undercurrent that is flowing through. It is what happened in the UK, it is what happened in the US, it is what happened in Canada, it is what happened with the election in Australia, and it is going to happen here. John Key—credit where it is due—is no fool. He can see what is going to happen, and he is getting out while the going is good.

Every political career comes to an end one way or another. Most of them end in ignominy. To be able to choose the time that you go is, perhaps, a credit to the man, but it cannot be said that he is leaving his party in the best of state. He should have announced a year ago that he was not going to complete a fourth term. He could have led his party into an election and told the people and told his party that he was going to pull out a year or a year and a half or 2 years into another term if he won. That would have been a more honest thing to do, but no. Instead, after 8 years of lots of horse-trading and very little else, lots of noise and nothing to show in the way of a tangible achievement, he has decided this is the time to cut and run, this is the time to hit the silk, and he is bailing. He is getting out. He will go off to Hawaii and play golf with Obama, and they can talk about the old days when they used to be in power.

I suppose in a year or so’s time he will pick up a knighthood, and that will be the end of it. But I will say this again: great Prime Ministers are recorded in the annals of history. Their names will be known for a long time. Love her or hate her, in 10 years’ time, in 20 years’ time, people will still be talking about Helen Clark. In 50 years’ time they will still be talking about Rob Muldoon. A hundred years from now people studying history will learn about the Rt Hon Winston Peters. But 5 years from now, people will be saying “John who?”, because he is a grey man, because he is a lightweight, because he has had a nice long hold of the tiller while the sea has been calm. Do not quote the global financial crisis. It did not affect New Zealand or Australia. Our backs were not exposed to that. He has had no real challenges and he has achieved nothing. His legacy will be that he will be forgotten.

He does not even have the flag change, because nobody wanted that. He could not see through that campaign at the beginning to see that that was going to be the result. The clever thing for a good political operator with a good brain and a good political sense of nous to have done would be to recognise that that campaign was doomed to failure early on in the piece and pull the pin. That would have shown some grace. That would have shown the people that he was listening, but no. He pushed on with it. He pushed on with it regardless of the fact that it was never going to succeed. He spent $26 million of taxpayers’ money on it that could have been much better spent on hip operations or fixing the roads or schools or any one of a number of other things, but $26 million to a multimillionaire money trader is just chicken feed, particularly when it is somebody else’s and when you have a vanity project that you want for your legacy. Well, that will be his legacy: the fact that nothing happened and nothing changed.

Next year things are going to change. The tide of change that is sweeping the world will sweep through New Zealand. They can scoff on that side of the House. They can scoff, and they do scoff, because they are not in touch with the real people. They are not in touch with heartland New Zealand. We are. New Zealand First is, and we will be the alternative. We will go into the 2017 campaign, New Zealand First, part of a three-way race, standing on our own, behind the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I think a lot of people all around—the pundits, the pollsters, people on that side of the House, and even people around us—are in for a great surprise.

They could take the message now. They could heed the warning. But the indication is that they are not going to; the indication is that things are going to unfold here exactly the same as they unfolded around the rest of the world, because the people who are currently in charge are every bit as out of touch here as they were over there. We will see change come, and I am afraid to say that John Key’s legacy will be that he is forgotten as a man who, as Prime Minister for 8 years, achieved nothing, changed nothing, and will not be remembered for anything. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, that speech by Richard Prosser was a speech from a member who lacks so many things, and now we know that he has a profound lack of graciousness. It was from a list MP, who would never be in Parliament had he not been put on a party list—nobody knew who he was—running down one of the great Prime Ministers of New Zealand.

I have had the great pleasure over the past 2 years of working with John Key up close, and I would characterise him as being one of the most affable, unflappable people I have ever known. At certain times—in meetings, and at Cabinet committees—I have said to myself “That guy is the Prime Minister of New Zealand, dealing with very serious issue X, and doing it in a way that does not show a hint of being flapped under pressure, or of panic.”, and that is why so many people who have worked with John Key have found him such a pleasure to deal with. On behalf of the ACT Party, I would like to thank him not only for myself but also for other ACT leaders who have had that relationship with John Key over the past 8 years.

In light of saying that, there is no question that although John Key is one of the best, most affable, and most popular day-to-day managers that a country could hope to have, just like in any period of conservative Government—whether it is 1960 to 1972 or whether it is 1975 to 1984—long-term problems have a tendency to accumulate in such a way that change must eventually come. But it will not come—I say to the member who just resumed his seat—from Winston Peters or New Zealand First, because to solve serious problems you actually need serious thinking and serious bravery to confront those challenges. When you turn to New Zealand First, and when you turn to Winston Peters, you get an awful lot of sizzle, but, at the end of the day, a very small sausage. You get an awful lot of piffle, but a real big shortage of porridge. New Zealand First members do not have what it takes, and that is why their only real selling point is that they believe they will surf a wave of change that has occurred in other countries, while ignoring what is actually happening in New Zealand, which is that, actually, New Zealand is doing pretty good.

It is those longer-term issues on the horizon that we need to tackle, and one of the most acute, when it comes to the retiring Prime Minister John Key, is the question of superannuation. Every 4 years the Treasury publishes its long-term fiscal outlook, and it says—depending on the year; the wording does not change much—something like this: that the Government has options, but if it does not take them soon things will get much, much harder. It predicts that, by the time current university students retire, they are going to find themselves living in a country with 200-odd percent public debt. That would be worse than Greece, worse than Italy, worse than Portugal, worse than Spain—worse than any of those so-called PIGS countries.

That is an issue on which just about every other country is moving. John Key said he would not change eligibility or the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. It is an issue where young people are saying “We know we’re not going to get it ourselves at 65. Why can’t we have the conversation?”—and now we can. There are so many people out there, in my generation of New Zealanders, who are finding it damn tough in the housing market. But they are now being joined by their parents, who are saying: “I’m quite pleased that in some parts of Auckland my house is worth $2 million or $3 million However, I have three kids, and I don’t want to give them $6 million or $9 million to get into the market themselves.” We find ourselves with two large issues there, which are intergenerational, and which a future Prime Minister and a future Government will have to take account of.

I am very proud to lead an ACT Party that has been playing a constructive role in Government over the last 8 years. Much of the debate and change that has come around in the housing market, in particular, has come from the Productivity Commission, which is an ACT Party initiative. We have recently seen, after evidence that it deters criminals, the first third-striker under the three-strikes law—something that New Zealanders want. We are also going into a round of prize-givings and commemorations for partnership schools or charter schools, which are changing kids’ lives for the better.

The ACT Party salutes John Key. We are proud of what we have done with him, and when it comes to New Zealand’s long-term challenges, we believe that we have got a lot more to contribute. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): On a day like this, I too want to join those who wish John Key well in his retirement. It is a time to thank him for his 8 years as Prime Minister of New Zealand. Anyone who has ever been close to a Prime Minister will know that they work incredibly hard, they make a huge commitment to the country, and it takes a great toll on them and their families. I wish him well in his years ahead.

But I need to tell this House that Labour is ready, we are organised, and we are hungry for the election, whenever it will be. We are committed to addressing the challenges that face this country, because we know that there is work to be done. We cannot cover up the fact that there are many New Zealanders out there who are suffering at the moment. They might not be obvious to some opposite, because, for many of them, they are out of touch with what is happening around our country.

For us, we are ready, and maybe now the air will be clear so that people will be able to hear our plans as to what we want to do for a better New Zealand. We are going to go out, and we are going to ask the questions of New Zealanders. We are going to say: “Should young New Zealanders miss out on owning their own home? Should older New Zealanders miss out on getting the healthcare that they need?”—people like Trixie Cottingham, who is 96 years old and had hours taken off for her home help. Why would we do that to a 96-year-old in a land of plenty? We are going to go out there and ask people, if they are going to work, whether they should not get a decent wage and decent working conditions. We are going to go out there and ask parents whether they should be paying for the education for their children, when they are dipping into their pockets every day to meet the expenses. We will be putting forward those questions, but, more importantly, we will be providing the plan to address them.

This resignation, in my view, has exposed a National caucus for what it is: a bunch of independent sole traders who are interested in themselves. We see the discontent. We now see the disbelief at losing their leader. We see the disaffection growing, and the envy and the resentment—and the resentment about John Key leaving will grow, because he was their ”get out of jail free” card. He was the person who was going to ensure the fourth term, and now he is gone.

I believe that we are now seeing that the knives are out. The new suits are being bought, the flash ties are being put on, and the people who would like to be the next Prime Minister are going round and sitting next to colleagues. In fact, colleagues on the other side have told me that they have never had so many phone calls from their caucus in their lives. You see, the knives are out, and what is going to be interesting is which knife will be the sharpest one. Will it be Judith Collins’ stiletto—you know, the one that slips in very, very easily? It slips in when you are not watching. It is called “the silent killer of ambition”.

Then we have got Jonathan Coleman. Well, he will have the scalpel. He will be wielding it with a total lack of precision, because he knows how good he is, even if everybody else does not. We are going to see, between him and Bill English, what has been called “the battle of the mustards”: the Colemans and the English mustards are going to be now battling over the leadership.

And then we have got Bill English. The knife that he is going to have is an old rusty carving knife. It has been in the back drawer for 13 years, and I have to tell Bill English that it is actually beyond sharpening. So then we have got Paula Bennett. She has not put her name in, but she is looking for a position. She has got a boning knife, you see. She is expert at removing meat from the bone, and she practised it first on beneficiaries, so she is certainly very skilled with the boning knife. And then, of course, Steven Joyce has got the utility knife. He has got the knife that goes across all portfolios, and especially portfolios where there are lots of stuff-ups. So what we know is that, across there, the fight has begun.

Do you know that they have got two ABCs already? They have got “anyone but Coleman” and “anyone but Collins”. They have got two ABBs—no, three ABBs: “anyone but Bill”, “anyone but Bennett”, and “anyone but Bridges”. So the battle is on.

As I said, the phones are running hot. We are here, watching, but what we are telling New Zealanders, while National members fight amongst themselves, is that we have a plan to take New Zealand forward and make this a much better place than it is now.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Pēnei te āhuatanga o te kōrero i runga i te marae. I te wiki kua hipa ake ka pā mai te āhuatanga o aituā ki Te Ao Māori i roto o Tauranga Moana, ka mutu, i Taranaki anō hoki. I te wiki kua hipa i tae mai a Taranaki ki konei, me poroporoaki ka tika, ki tērā o ngā whaea a Whero Bailey, ka mutu, ki a Awanui Black i mate i roto o Tauranga Moana, me te kī atu: haere koutou ki te pō uriuri ki te pō tangotango.

Kia hoki mai ki a tātau e hui nei i tēnei ahiahi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. Kei te tū ake kaua ki te whaiwhai haere i ngā kōrero o tētahi atu, kāo, ēngari ki te mihi ki Te Pirimia, ki a John Key, mō te āhuatanga o tana piringa, otirā, tana hononga ki Te Pāti Māori i ngā 8 tau kua hipa ake. Me pēnei te kī, mai i te tīmatanga mai o te noho o Te Nāhinara hei kāwanatanga mō tēnei whenua, i tuku te tono ki a mātau o Te Pāti Māori mō te noho hei hoa haere. Ēhara i te mea me pērā rawa ka tika—kāo. He tono. He pōhiri ki a mātau o Te Pāti Māori kia noho atu hei hoa haere mō Te Rōpū Nāhinara.

I hangaia tētahi kirimana e mea ana, āe, me pōti Te Pāti Māori ki te taha o Te Nāhinara, o te kāwanatanga o te rā, mō Te Tahua Pūtea Nui, ia tau, ia tau, me pērā ka tika kia tau ai te āhuatanga o Te Whare Pāremata, otirā, o Te Kāwanatanga. Ka rua, e āhei ana mātau ki te whakahē i te kāwanatanga mēnā koirā te tikanga, ē, kāore he raruraru ēngari, me whakapā atu ki te kāwanatanga kia mōhio mārama a ia ki te āhuatanga o te noho. Ka toru, kia whai wāhi mātau, ka whiwhi i ngā painga, ko Whānau Ora tērā, ko Ngā Take Tiriti tērā, ko te Kermadecs, ko te Mātāwai, ko Te Ture Whenua Māori. Ēnei take katoa kia taea e mātou te kōkiri ki mua i te aro o Te Whare Pāremata, mā reira ka taea te kōkiri ngā take o Te Pāti Māori. Ka toru, kia noho tētahi hei Minita. Ka whā—he aha rānei—ka mutu, ka whiwhi i a mātou ngā moni mai i Te Tahua Pūtea ka taka mai ki Te Pāti Māori.

He aha i pēnei ai taku kōrero? I te mea ēnei āhuatanga, kua puta nā runga i te āhuatanga o te noho o John Key hei Pirimia mō Aotearoa me te āhuatanga o te hononga ki a mātou o Te Pāti Māori. Nō reira, koinei te tū ake ki te mihi ki a ia, kaua mōku ake, kaua mō taku tuahine e noho nei ēngari, he kōrero anō rā tēnei. Kāore e kore, kai roto i te ngākau o Tā Pita Sharples i te wā i a ia, o Kahurangi Tariana Tūria i te wā i a ia. Nō reira, hei whakamāmā i te āhuatanga o ngā meneti kei mua i a au, ka huri ki Te Reo Pākehā mō te wā poto.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This contribution is similar to a delivery on the marae. Last week Māoridom was affected by the circumstance of death in Tauranga, and then in Taranaki also. In the week just gone Taranaki arrived here and, quite aptly, one of the aunties, Whero Bailey, was accorded a farewell tribute, and afterwards one was accorded to Awanui Black, who died in Tauranga, and with due respect I say to them: go forth to the dark and immensely dark void.

Allow me to come back to us assembled here this afternoon, so greetings and salutations to you collectively, and an appreciation to us all. I rise not to follow on in the tenor of the contributions by others, no, but rather to compliment the Prime Minister, John Key, on the circumstances of his allegiance and connection to the Māori Party in the past 8 years. Let me put it this way, from the beginning that National remained the Government for this nation, an invitation came to us of the Māori Party in regard to becoming an associate alongside of it. It was not as a right though—no. He asked. It was an invitation to us of the Māori Party to remain as an associate with the National Government.

A contract was created, and it stated that, yes, the Māori Party would vote alongside of National, the Government of the day, for the Budget each year, and that it should take into account circumstances that relate to the House of Parliament but at the same time to those circumstances that relate to the Government. Secondly, we were able to oppose the Government if that indeed was procedure, and there was not a problem, but we were to contact the Government so that it clearly understood the circumstances regarding our position. Thirdly, it stated that we be involved, and that we reap benefits, being from Whānau Ora, matters relating to the Treaty, the Kermadecs, Te Mātāwai, and the Māori Land Act. We the Māori Party will be able to champion all these matters before the House of Parliament, and by doing that we will be able to champion matters of concern to us. Thirdly, it stated for one of us to remain as a Minister. Fourthly—or whatever—to eventually receive cash from the Budget that will trek down to the Māori Party.

Why has my address gone this way? Because these situations have emerged as a consequence of the situation as to why John Key has remained as Prime Minister for New Zealand and because of his relationship with us of the Māori Party. Therefore, this is why I got up to acknowledge him, not for me personally, not for my colleague sister sitting here, but this again is indeed another conversation. Without a doubt, it might have been in the heart of Sir Pita Sharples in his time here and in the heart of Dame Tariana Tūria when she was here. And so, to ease the circumstances pertaining to the minutes that I have before me, I will turn to speak in English for a brief moment.]

I stand to acknowledge the Prime Minister, not necessarily getting another opportunity to do it on behalf of the Māori Party to the Prime Minister of the day, John Key, and thank him for his willingness to work with the Māori Party.

People have to remember that the Māori Party has an arrangement that comes about from a tono, an invitation, to sit next to National. In the 8 years that we have been here—actually, longer than that—but in the 8 years that we have had a relationship with the National Party it has come about from a tono, from an invitation, from the Prime Minister to the Māori Party to sit as a partner with Government. Why? Because, for whatever reason, the Prime Minister felt that we brought something extra, something dynamic, something unique, something wonderful, something mana-enhancing, something beautiful, something—

Marama Fox: Advantageous.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Advantageous, that is right.

Marama Fox: Valuable.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: We brought something valuable—all of those words, my sister—to the country. But also, strangely enough, he allowed us to vote against the Government if we wanted to. He, as well as other Ministers, has acknowledged that sometimes that is not always the best thing, from their perspective. But for our part, and certainly for me, from Marama my colleague—and from the Hon Dr Sir Pita Sharples and Dame Tariana Turia, I am sure that they bring a huge amount of respect for the Prime Minister John Key for what he has done with this mana-enhancing relationship. It has always been on the whole ingredient of an element of integrity, of being straight-up, of being true to your word, and being trustworthy in the words that you say to one another. Even as recently as 5 minutes ago we acknowledged that in his office, by saying thank you for the contribution, not only to the country, but certainly for allowing the Māori Party to be with the National Party, when he has never ever needed us but he has believed in us as bringing something absolutely extra to the relationship accord with the National Government.

And have we achieved things? Hell, yeah! If it had not been for the ability to sit next to our Government, Te Mātāwai, Ture Whenua Māori, the Māori Purposes Bill, Whānau Ora—all of these programmes would not be in front of us. So we have, as you would understand, a huge amount of respect for him. We wish him well in the future. We understand that his whānau is important, and we allow him to go back to his whānau with our best interests. We wish him well.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): There are times in life when it is appropriate to be gracious. I want to associate myself with the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Bill English, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee. In particular, I want to acknowledge the very warm and generous tributes of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, David Seymour from the ACT Party, who spoke before him, and also the Hon Peter Dunne who, although he has not spoken in this debate today, made similarly complimentary remarks yesterday.

It does not mean that any of the leaders of those parties endorses everything that the National Party leads on and decides—far from it—and that is a matter of public record. But we have there the leaders of three parties who have shown that through relationships where there is mutual respect, a genuine desire to focus on the issues that matter to New Zealanders, and a realisation that under the MMP system of politics at times compromises are necessary, we have enjoyed, over the last 8 years, a highly successful period in Government. I warmly salute all three of those parties for their significant contributions to that. What a shame, therefore, that we have not seen the same degree of graciousness from members who have spoken from across the House, although I do acknowledge the remarks that the Hon Annette King commenced with and I thank her for that.

So, like most New Zealanders, I did not wake up yesterday expecting the Prime Minister to announce his resignation. But after I got over the shock of what had occurred and thought about it later in the day, I realised that, actually, it was exactly what I have always expected—that John Key would choose the timing and the manner of his departure, and that he would have the opportunity to leave this House with his head held high and enjoying the appreciation and admiration of an overwhelming number of New Zealanders. And that, in itself, is a very rare achievement for any politician.

Despite the cheap and churlish attacks that we heard, particularly from the New Zealand First Party today and also from the leader of the Greens, the fact of the matter is that our Prime Minister has always—and unrelentingly—focused on the things that matter most to New Zealanders. One of the reasons why I have been so proud to be a member of the party while he has been our Prime Minister has been that we have made a significant difference in areas that matter, through some of the most challenging times that our country could possibly have imagined. No one else in our lifetime has governed through a global financial crisis of such magnitude. No one else in our lifetime has had to lead a country through the devastating Canterbury earthquakes and, more recently, the Kaikōura earthquake, its impact on Wellington, and the long period of instability and huge fiscal impact that those events have had.

We have also seen a number of other major challenges—the Rena disaster, Pike River, floods, and you name it. So it goes on. On every one of those occasions, the Prime Minister and the team he has led have stood beside the people who were affected, and have been there to provide the support that is necessary. That is why he has maintained the gratitude and the respect of so many New Zealanders.

In 2002 John Key and I were both new candidates for the National Party. I have to say that his campaign, as the candidate for Helensville, was considerably more successful than mine was that year, in the devastating election that saw me absolutely hammered in Tauranga. But I enjoyed getting to know him then, hugely admired watching his progress during the next few years, and was very pleased to see him take the leadership of the party when he did.

I believe that New Zealanders, generally, will acknowledge him warmly. Contrary to what Mr Prosser said, the historians will look back on some of the issues that I have just referred to, and the really significant role that our minor party supporters have played—particularly over the Treaty settlement process—and they will judge him highly, as he deserves to be. It is never possible to please all of the people all of the time, but to have retained the level of support that he has done in the polls is no coincidence; it shows that he has been somebody who has been there focusing on the things that matter. And he has achieved wonderful things with the delivery of Better Public Services; the Treaty settlement process, which I have referred to; the focus, in particular, on vulnerable New Zealanders by raising benefits, introducing free doctors visits for children under 13, measures to deal with our problems, particularly for emergency housing—the list goes on—and his unrelenting focus on raising standards of achievement in education.

He has been an outstanding Prime Minister, he leaves a legacy that will be admired—and is admired—by international leaders, and I am incredibly proud to have been a part of that team. I salute him and I thank him sincerely on behalf of my constituents and all New Zealanders.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I will nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. The impact and the implications of poor oral health are often underestimated—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Does the member intend to make another comment at the end of the referral?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I was nominating the Health Committee to consider the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And there is not a date that the member—

Hon PETER DUNNE: No, there is not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. I was wrongly informed. I apologise.

Hon PETER DUNNE: As I was saying, poor oral health significantly affects people’s general health and their well-being. It can, and does, cause severe pain and discomfort, and it can make even a daily activity, like eating, pretty difficult. The flow-on effects include low self-confidence, diminished employment prospects, and an unwelcome intrusion into people’s personal lives. Anyone who has experienced significant toothache will know just how debilitating it can be—and it is not surprising that children with poor oral health are more likely to miss school and perform poorly in school.

Although our country’s oral health has improved over the last 40 years, we still have high rates of preventable tooth decay—that is, decayed, missing, or filled teeth. In 2014 more than 40 percent of 5-year-olds, and more than 60 percent of Māori and Pacific 5-year-olds, already had tooth decay. These same children, and children in high-deprivation areas, are also significantly less likely to be enrolled with primary care services at birth. They are significantly less likely to be enrolled in oral health services, to have contract with Well Child services, or to complete the B4 School Check. In 2016 this state of affairs is simply not good enough. That is why, when I assumed responsibility for the oral health portfolio in 2015, progress on fluoridation was top of my list. These children, as well as adults and older people, can be helped cheaply and effectively by the fluoridation of drinking water. We know from the international evidence, and from our own experience, that fluoridation is safe, it is effective, and it is cost-effective. Fluoridation offers significant gains at little cost compared with other interventions, and all age groups benefit from fluoridation.

At the moment, territorial local authorities decide whether to fluoridate water supplies, and 27 out of 67 of them have decided not to do so. That means that about 54 percent only of our population is receiving fluoridated water. That level has not changed or increased in the last 15 years. In fact, some local authorities have introduced fluoridation only to reverse their decisions in the face of vocal minorities, and then, in some cases, reverse them back to where they started from, once again.

Fluoridation has become an increasingly contentious issue for local authorities. We have seen active lobbying and court action by anti-fluoridation groups. But, remarkably, members of these groups apparently always know more than those at the top of their fields in science, academia, professional associations, and healthwork associations globally. The fact is that community water fluoridation is recommended by too many expert bodies and dental organisations to list here, but include—to name only a few—the British, Canadian, Australian, American, and New Zealand dental associations, the New Zealand and American paediatric establishments, and the World Health Organization.

Because of its contribution to the large decline in dental cavities in the United States since the 1960s, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named community water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. So I say—for the benefit of the tinfoil hat - wearing, UFO-abducted, anti-fluoride campaigners out there still peddling the same old pseudo-science myths—there is nothing left to debate on this issue. It is over; science has won. The Government’s website www.fluoridefacts.govt.nz provides comprehensive information and responses on community fluoridation, and I encourage anyone interested in the issue to take a look.

Over the last 2 years or so, Local Government New Zealand has delivered a strong message that it believes fluoridation decisions should be made by the health sector, rather than by local government: that local authorities’ expertise exists in supplying the drinking water, while district health boards (DHBs) have the expertise in oral health. I agree. I have met with Local Government New Zealand’s president and its chief executive on a number of occasions to express my support for such a change. In April this year the Government agreed that decisions about fluoridation should be moved to district health boards, and that is what this bill does.

The bill amends Part 2A of the Health Act 1956, to transfer the power to make decisions on fluoridation from local authorities to district health boards. Now some might ask, why did the Government not simply mandate fluoridation and be done with it? Well, the Government’s view is that, generally speaking, population health issues are best addressed through the elected district health boards, which ensures not only the engagement of health professionals but also maintains a high degree of democratic community involvement.

This change will enable decisions about whether or not to fluoridate to be made from a health perspective, which may, in turn, extend fluoridation coverage and improve oral health in New Zealand. So in deciding whether or not to fluoridate, DHBs will be required to consider the scientific evidence and whether the benefits of adding fluoride to the relevant drinking water supply outweigh the cost. The fluoridation decision-making powers will be over local government water suppliers only, because these are the majority of water suppliers and they are the most significant. Private suppliers—the majority of which are owned by Government agencies—and self-suppliers, are outside the scope of these changes.

The main mechanism of the bill is that a DHB can issue a direction for a water supply to be fluoridated, or for it not to be fluoridated. Where a water supply is shared by more than one district health board, they must be unanimous in issuing a decision to fluoridate. The bill has provisions for offences included in it, to ensure that all potential breaches of the legislation are covered. For example, it would be an offence for a water supplier not to comply with a direction to fluoridate, or for a water supplier to stop fluoridating, in the absence of a direction, where they are already doing so. The penalties for these offences are the same as those referenced in other parts of the Health Act, and they remain, consequently, consistent with the Act. The bill appropriately places decision-making rights over this important public health issue with the health experts.

But let me say this: fluoridation is not the answer; it is not a silver bullet. Although it does, over time, make a significant difference—and is worth pursuing from that perspective alone—it is complementary to, rather than a substitute for, good oral hygiene and a healthy diet. High sugar content foods and beverages, in particular sugar-sweetened beverages, do damage teeth. I have seen the heartbreaking images of very young children being admitted to hospital with mouths full of rotten and decayed teeth—a state of affairs not of their doing, but they live with the consequences.

So I say to parents who think it is acceptable to feed your young ones, especially your infants, sugary food and drinks: wake up and buck up your ideas. The most appropriate drink for your kids is free, and it is in your kitchen right now. It is called water.

This bill is expected to extend fluoridation coverage in New Zealand. It will improve oral health and reduce the burden of disparities associated with poor oral health. This is a good bill, it is backed by the science, and, frankly, it is long overdue. So with a great deal of pleasure, I commend it to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour will be supporting this bill to the Health Committee. I want to begin by commending Peter Dunne, the Associate Minister of Health, on his commitment to oral health. It is an area that I have a great deal of interest in—many know my background before I came to this House—but it has not been an area where there has been a lot of interest from other Associate Ministers of Health or Ministers of Health. But, certainly, Peter Dunne, over the years, has shown a commitment to improving the oral health of New Zealanders.

But I have to say to Mr Dunne that I am a little disappointed in this bill, because this bill is one that is now going to shift the decision making from local government to elected district health boards. Although that is a good halfway step, it is not the full answer as to what is required here. You see, one of the reasons that it has shifted away from local government is because it became highly political at a local level. Campaigns were run against fluoridation. Misinformation was spread. People stood for local government to oppose fluoridation. What we are doing in this bill is to shift the responsibility now to elected district health boards. Already, we know—and I think it is in Hamilton, where there has been some controversy over fluoridation—that one member of a district health board has stood solely for the purpose of opposing fluoridation. What we have done is to shift responsibility from one elected body to another elected body.

I take the Minister’s point that this is a health measure. This is not a water measure; it is a public health measure. The Minister said that population health is best addressed by elected district health boards at a local level. That is not the case in practically every other decision a district health board has to make. They are required by the Minister of Health, who has absolute say over what they do through the letter of expectation, to carry out the wishes of the Government of the day. So the idea that they have got some autonomy in making decisions around health is only very, very at the edges, if at all. So by shifting the responsibility to district health boards, we will see, once again, the political pressure applied to those who are on those boards.

I think if we are really committed to improving the oral health of young New Zealanders, with all the science that we know, with all the backing that occurs—there is no doubt about the science, and the Minister mentioned that. But, also, the World Health Organization recommended that we boost fluoride to optimum levels. With all that, why is this decision not being made as a public health measure by the Ministry of Health, when it set a water standard. Why are we going to a halfway house? I suspect—and I am not sure, but I suspect—the Associate Minister may well have liked to have gone the full hog, but this is a halfway house.

So we will support it to the select committee, and I am interested in hearing submissions from the public on this measure. I hope those who are backed by evidence and science will come forward to make submissions on why we should be fluoridating water.

Look, this is a controversial issue. It has been controversial as long as everybody in this House has been alive, and it will not go away. But we have—

Simon O’Connor: Not that long, then.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, I am not as old as the oldest person in this House, but this issue has been around for as long as the oldest person in this House. I would remind the members opposite in the National Party—because this is a bill put up by their coalition partner—of what the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society of New Zealand, assisted by a panel of experts, said in 2014. This is the man who has been chosen by the Government to give expert advice on such matters, along with the Royal Society of New Zealand—one a respectable person, one a respectable body—and they concluded there is compelling evidence that fluoridation of the water at recommended levels produces broad benefits for the dental health of New Zealand. Why would we be going to another halfway house on a measure that is shown to be able to give benefit to New Zealanders and the oral health of New Zealanders?

Do you know, when I started in my career, many years ago, the number of children with missing, decayed, and filled teeth was huge. In fact, I trained in those days to do extractions on permanent teeth, such was the state of New Zealanders’ teeth. Over the years it has improved. It has certainly improved in areas where we have fluoridated water. What we do have in New Zealand now is dental decay that is the disease of poverty. You can see it in many parts of New Zealand.

The best measure that would give them the best chance of lifetime teeth is fluoridation. We have those who will oppose it, based on voodoo science, and I think it is a real shame that we have been unable to crack this issue and to say this is a public health measure. We have done it on immunisation; we have done it on so many other issues in New Zealand. We said “This is a public health measure that lifts the health status of all New Zealanders.”, but not in oral health. We continue to deny the need for us to take measures that will give every child in a fluoridated area the opportunity to have good teeth.

I just so wish I had had that opportunity, because one of the great costs to the health system of the future is going to be the baby boomers who retire not with false teeth but their own teeth and little ability to pay for that dental care. There is no help for adult New Zealanders who need dental care. The best thing that could happen to our young people becoming adults is that they go into their life with good teeth that need little work at all. Because if you want to see how you can blow a health budget—you will blow it if you have to provide oral health to all New Zealanders.

Fluoridation is such a sensible measure. So I say to the Associate Minister: is he prepared to look at another option here? Is he prepared, when this bill goes to the select committee—if the evidence and if the submissions are not form submissions that we often get when someone opposes something and they are all asked to send them in—to look at an alternative where, in fact, fluoridation is a standard set by the Ministry of Health, the Director-General of Health, as a public health measure? I ask the Associate Minister that in all seriousness, because he did point out some of the terrible statistics around New Zealand children’s teeth.

The number of children hospitalised with tooth decay was a thousand extra 2 years ago compared with 2008. You look at the figures—the number of children hospitalised; think about that, having to go into hospital because they have got tooth decay. Look at the number of children who have to have a general anaesthetic to remove their teeth. Sure, there is an obligation for parents to make sure their children eat healthy food, that we restrict the amount of sugary drinks etc. that children are consuming, and that they clean their teeth, but, as we know, that does not always happen and has not always happened. But there is one measure that would give them a good start, and that is fluoridation of the water supply.

I guarantee that we—all of us on the Health Committee—will be inundated by text messages, emails, and letters telling us that we should not be approaching this measure. But I say that our select committee has shown over time that it is prepared to look at the tough issues, and I am sure it will, but I want to see whether there is a better way of doing this that has real coverage of fluoridated water supply rather than, as I have said, this halfway measure.

We will support the bill to select committee. We welcome the submissions I hope there will be there. We would welcome, also, expert advice coming before our committee. In fact, I say to our chair, Simon O’Connor, that we ought to invite Professor Gluckman to come and give the evidence as to why this is a very good public health measure.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take call after the Hon Annette King, who has just taken her seat, and the Associate Minister Peter Dunne, of course. As the Hon Annette King pointed out, the Health Committee members are not afraid of tackling the tough issues. In fact, we seem to have made a habit of it in the last few years of attracting pretty much all of them. I think if we get one more sort of issue—and I will not mention what that might be—it will become sort of like a bingo session.

Can I say I am pleased to take a call on this Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, and to acknowledge the Minister, or Ministers, who are responsible for this. I know the Hon Peter Dunne is primarily leading this, but also in cooperation with the Minister of Health, Dr Jonathan Coleman. I think this is a very important bill, and I say to Associate Minister Peter Dunne, who is here in the House, my thanks for bringing it. I think I am personally looking forward to having it in the select committee, and by the sounds of early indications—granted, we are three speeches in—we should have the numbers.

This is an important piece of legislation. I think one of the things I want to stress right from the outset—and I think it probably will affect the way the committee addresses things, but I do not want to presume what we as a group will have as a discussion—is that this is not about, first and foremost, fluoridation itself. This is not an argument around the merits of fluoridation or otherwise. This is a discussion about where the jurisdiction lies to have it put it into the water. Is it done by councils, where is sits currently, or is it done by the district health boards (DHBs)? I say that particularly to those who are interested in the debate and those who continue the debate around the efficacy of fluoride, because, again, this is not about whether fluoride is good or bad in the water; it is about who makes the decisions.

I think, quite rightly, this is being dealt with now, or is being proposed to be dealt with, as a health issue. I think it is right and proper that this should sit within DHBs and that they consider the issue, rather than councils. As I understand things, just over 50 percent of New Zealand has fluoride in the water—just over 50 percent. Yet it is something like—sorry, I will have to look at my notes briefly; I think it is 40 percent—40 percent of young people in New Zealand who have issues around tooth decay. And, actually, it is a no-brainer, to use a rather colloquial term, that fluoride is a sensible health intervention to try to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. I think the member, Annette King, rightly pointed out that there are a whole lot of issues that one can look at around the use of sugary drinks and so forth, but, actually, as a single, country-wide intervention, fluoride in the water makes sense.

I am slightly biased in so far as during my upbringing my parents gave me a little—there were these little pills. I have forgotten what they were called but—

Stuart Nash: Fluoride tablets.

SIMON O’CONNOR: They were fluoride tablets. I was trying to think of the brand though, Mr Nash. They were in a little white tube with a green top, and every morning with the Weet-Bix, two of them were brought out. I absolutely hated them. However, here I am at 40 years of age and I have great teeth—great teeth—with no fillings, and I certainly link that to said fluoride tablets, so thanks, Mum. But look, it is a no-brainer on the science, and I want to be very clear about that.

I know on controversial issues I have always gone out in public so people can judge how I run the select committee according to, well, the process. But to be very clear on where I personally stand, the science of the efficacy of fluoride in water is abundantly clear. It does not matter if it is from the Royal Society of New Zealand, to Sir Peter Gluckman—and, in fact, I think it would be really good to have Sir Peter come in and brief us—through to the health organisations.

I know there are some vocal people out there who say, from a pseudo-science perspective, that it is a bad thing. The science is clear, and if we are to relook at fluoride again we might as well start looking at whether the Earth is flat or round, or we should start arguing again whether there is gravity. The case for fluoride is abundantly clear, and I am very happy to go on the record about that.

I think this bill is an important step forward. As I noted, it is about health first and foremost, so I think it rightly sits in the domain of the DHBs. We will certainly be welcoming those who wish to submit, but I am signalling too, in my own mind-set, as one member of the committee, that this is about the jurisdiction of who allocates fluoride to the water. It is not about the efficacy of fluoride itself. I commend this first reading, and look forward to it coming to the Health Committee.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): As a member of the Health Committee, I too look forward to receiving this bill and to the interesting discussion that will, no doubt, ensue from that. Yes, the district health boards (DHBs) are going to have the opportunity to determine fluoridation of the water supply, which is an interesting take, as my colleague the Hon Annette King has already discussed—the DHBs having a role, rather than the territorial local authorities.

I think the other point that she made, which I will want to discuss and tease out a little bit further, is the lead that should have been taken by the Ministry of Health in this regard. It is a public health issue. It is one that many of us have been significantly lobbied about. I am anticipating, now that this bill is in the House, that we will again be receiving many emails and requests for meetings from people who are anti - fluoridation of the water supply. It has been quite well canvassed across the country, but no doubt there will be people who are making last-minute attempts to stop fluoridation of their own local water supply, and I am sure that they will also submit to the select committee on it.

In the discussion on this particular bill there was reference made to the World Health Organization recommending boosting fluoride to optimum levels, which obviously does not occur across all of the water supplies in our country. I decided to do a little bit of research into what the World Health Organization (WHO) actually recommends as a useful approach in fluoridation. It makes a couple of comments that I would like our select committee to think about when we are looking at who it is we get to come and give us advice on this particular bill. It talks about the socio-behavioural risk factors in dental caries, which are found universally, and how they play a significant role in children, adults, and older people. The disease level is relatively high among underprivileged population groups—people with low education, poor dietary habits, poor living conditions, and high consumption of sugars—and WHO makes a statement: “Unless serious efforts are made to tackle the social inequity by modifying risk factors and by establishing effective caries prevention programmes, the level of dental caries in disadvantaged populations and countries will unduly increase.”

So I thought, well, I would do a little bit of investigation to see what the impact was on some of those so-called disadvantaged populations. I found a report from 2011-12 called The Health of New Zealand Adults 2011/12: Key findings of the New Zealand Health Survey, and in it, it makes for some sobering reading. It said in the key findings “About 270,000 adults have had a tooth removed in the last year”, and “Less than one in two adults have had a dental visit in the past year”. What that said is that 49 percent of the population has visited the dentist once in the last year. So there is a significant proportion of the population that has not visited the dentist in 12 months: “More than half of the dentate adults reported that they only visit a dental health care worker when they have a dental heath problem (or never), rather than for regular check-ups. This rate has increased since 2006/07.” So there is a significant proportion of our people who are not getting regular dental care. “Māori and Pacific and Asian adults are less likely to have visited a dental health care worker in the past year … They were also more likely to only visit when they have dental problems, or never visit.”

So there is a significant proportion of our population who will go, I guess, only if they are experiencing pain or if they have an abscess or there is some significant dental issue—or they never go. So when we are at select committee, when we are actually looking to the officials to provide some evidence to us, I would really like to tease out what strategy we might want to put in place to tackle those disadvantaged populations, because at this stage we do not appear to have an overarching strategy to deal with the dental health of our population.

Those particular groups that I mentioned unfortunately also feature highly in poor nutrition and the overconsumption of sugar. The overconsumption of sugary drinks is surely a major factor in this, which is why the fluoridation of water, yes, is important—if you can actually get access to supplied water. When we have got significant numbers of our population living in precarious situations—some of them living in cars and caravans, and those other situations—will they actually have access to water from the tap, as the Associate Minister has described? Well, I would say in that case that, no, they do not. It is not a right that every New Zealander currently has in this country. When you cannot actually have a roof over your head you cannot provide a kitchen that is going to have running water. So the whole notion of fluoridation is only part of the answer when it comes to the decent oral health of our community.

I am really hopeful that this is part of a strategy where we can actually look at how we tackle the poor oral health of our nation. Having conversations with my colleague Stuart Nash here, who claims not to have had a filling, my experience has been quite different. As a young child, through free dental care, I was able to have access to dental services free of charge. When you turn a certain age, of course, that no longer becomes free—and for a large proportion of our population the one thing that they do not do with regard to health is take care of their teeth, because the cost is prohibitive. It is not until some major thing happens like an abscess or the requirement to have tooth taken out that they will actually go to a dentist.

It is significant because poor oral health actually impacts on the rest of your physical health. If you have got good oral health, you actually are, generally speaking, in much better overall health. Poor oral health actually has really bad outcomes for you in terms of your overall health condition. So when the bill comes to the select committee I would like to be exploring some of those other ideas and those other options, and looking at possibly having a strategy to determine how we can ensure that all of our people, including those who are the most disadvantaged—the ones whom I quote—actually get a fair deal in this.

I just want to finish with the summary that has come from that particular health survey. In 2011-12—I am sorry that the statistics are not more recent—it was key-indicated that someone who had had a tooth removed due to decay, abscess, infection or gum disease in the past 12 months had gone up to 270,000 people. The statistics were not collected in 2006-07, which was the previous report. The indicator of those who had visited a dental health care worker in the past 12 months: 49 percent. There was a decrease in that. The last indicator—that they have usually visited a dental care worker for a toothache or never—was 55 percent of the population. Well, I really hope that this bill does something to turn those statistics around. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is going to be an interesting conversation when we bring this to the Health Committee because we do have the experience of the Hon Annette King, who has a dentistry background, and we also have Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First, who is very focused in this dentistry area.

We have probably established already at this point in time that it is actually not a decision about whether fluoride is good or bad for us. A quote from Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who is the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, says that “It is absolutely clear that at doses used in New Zealand to adjust the natural level to one that is consistent with beneficial effects [0.7 to 1.0 parts per million] there is no risk from fluoride in the water.” As someone who grew up on a farm that did not have fluoridated water, I can certainly remember my mother having the little tubes of fluoride tablets, but probably not as frequently as we needed them to have some effect from them. I am not sure that my teeth have been all the better for not having fluoride as I grew up. So I am looking forward to this coming to the committee.

The bill does enable—if it passes eventually, which I hope it does—the district health boards rather than the local authorities to decide whether their communities’ water supplies are fluoridated, because, at the end of the day, this is a health issue; it is not a local authority thing, really, in my mind, to decide. People are elected there. They do not necessarily have the skills in health or the ability to talk about that sort of stuff, as opposed to all the information that goes on in a district health board. I think that when it comes to local authorities making these decisions, they are more likely to have a huge amount of lobbyists, and they will not all have the ability to be able to make the case back in the other direction.

At the moment only 54 percent of our total population receive fluoridated drinking water and that figure has not increased over the last 15 years. So I think there is a real case to be made in that the decisions that are currently being made are not increasing the dental health of our population. It is time to look at a change in the way we do this and I really look forward to the bill coming to the Health Committee after the first reading, so we can take some good submissions and come back with a result that will help the New Zealand public. Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Tooth decay is a serious problem—probably one that people tend not to think about, but it is a preventable disease that has significant health and social impacts. Untreated tooth decay can lead to pain, dental abscesses, and serious infection. It is something we should be attempting to reduce and eliminate in Aotearoa. It is the most common disease amongst both children and adults and it significantly impacts, of course, poorer socio-economic groups and children in particular. In 2013 more than 40 percent of our 5-year-olds and more than 60 percent of Māori and Pacific 5-year-olds had already experienced tooth decay. And, of course, that is going to be a problem they go on to suffer for the rest of their lives—the earlier it affects one, the more damaging it is going to be over the course of one’s life.

The Green Party is supporting this bill at first reading because we recognise, broadly, the public health benefits of community water fluoridation. We also recognise that there is a need to balance the needs of individuals and the rights of individuals to opt out of mass medication, but, overall, it is pretty obvious that low levels of fluoridation, which are used in New Zealand and proposed in those areas where they are not currently used, are not harmful to health. There is a whole body of evidence supporting this. The Royal Society of New Zealand’s Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence makes it very clear that the health benefits are substantial in New Zealand, particularly for children: there is 40 percent less tooth decay for New Zealand children living in areas with community water fluoridation than for those who are living in areas without it. That is quite compelling evidence about the benefits.

That said, it is a bit of an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It is pretty interesting that this Government is willing to pass legislation for community water fluoridation, which will have some benefits, but not to take other public health measures that would significantly reduce the harm caused by sugary drinks, for example. When we fluoridate the water supply people do not have the option, necessarily, to avoid it even if they do not need it, so I do not see how that approach is less nanny State, if you will, than taking an approach of regulating harmful additives to drinks and food, like a sugary drinks tax, the revenue from which could be used to fund health promotion and possibly even to fund healthcare services like dental care.

Overall, the Green Party wants to see a very holistic approach that recognises that the food we eat and the things children drink all have some impact, both on their overall health and on the well-being of the entire community. For that reason I think it is disappointing that the Government is unwilling to investigate options that would be equally cost-effective, or more cost-effective, and not only solve the problem of tooth decay but solve the problems, or reduce the problems and harms, of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other obesity-related chronic diseases, all of which are caused by over-consumption of sugary drinks.

I think the only reason why this Government is not pursuing the very effective strategy that has also been recommended by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and recommended by the World Health Organization, which is to implement a tax on sugary drinks and use the revenue to fund health promotion and other services, is that there are large corporates—“big soda”—that stand to miss out if people reduce their consumption of sugary drinks. There is no other reason why. If we have got compelling evidence that policies are going to be effective for people, effective at reducing the harms caused by tooth decay and other chronic diseases, and that it is going to be cost-effective, why would we not implement those policies to help protect our children? I suppose it is because the National Government is ideologically opposed to an approach that would reduce the profits for large corporates, even though it would benefit our children.

Coming back to this bill, the Green Party is supporting this at first reading. We do have some concerns and questions that I will be raising at the Health Committee. Firstly, although we understand the rationale of this being a public health decision and that it therefore might sit better with the district health boards (DHBs) because they are in a good position to evaluate the health evidence, the reality is that the funding and the money to pay for community water fluoridation is going to have to come from local councils and ratepayers. So there is an interesting imbalance there, where district health boards might be making decisions that impose fiscal costs on local authorities. I think that is something that we need to raise. I acknowledge that Associate Minister Peter Dunne noted that Local Government New Zealand supports this bill, but I would be interested to know how local authorities feel about district health boards making decisions that impact their bottom lines and how much money they are going to have to spend.

Another concern is that community water fluoridation really might not make sense in some parts of New Zealand. For example, Christchurch is one of the only cities in the world to have a pure artesian water source that is untreated. I know that is very much valued by that local community, and the cost of fluoridating water in Christchurch will be significantly higher because there is not that infrastructure set up to treat the water. So I wonder whether this bill is going to mean that the district health board in Christchurch is considering the health impacts, but is going to consider the disbenefits to Christchurch and the high fiscal impact of treating water in Christchurch, which is, of course, going to be a new cost.

Finally, although there is considerable evidence of the health benefits of community water fluoridation, and there is no question that the low levels of fluoridation that we are talking about do not have negative health impacts, fluoride naturally occurs in the environment, including in water. It is lower in New Zealand than in other parts of the world. It is known to have a protective effect on teeth when used at the correct levels. Most water sources in New Zealand do not naturally contain fluoride at a level that helps prevent tooth decay, but it can just be topped up to that optimum level, which is still a very small level. An adult male would need to drink 1,520 glasses of water in one day to reach a toxic dose of fluoride. A 1-year-old baby would need to drink 260 glasses of water in one day.

So I do not think that the levels of fluoridation we are talking about really pose significant health risks. It is clear in that report from the Royal Society of New Zealand that there are not these negative impacts, but it remains that there is also considerable concern, and real fear, out there amongst some people in the community. That is what is driving some of this push against community water fluoridation. I think we have to recognise those concerns and fears, and I am a little bit concerned that by transferring the decision to DHBs, and not having any requirement to consult and educate and engage with the community, it is actually going to increase the fear amongst that very small percentage of the population that is very, very concerned about community water fluoridation. The best way to get people on board is to engage with them and listen to their concerns, so this is something else that we will be raising at the select committee. It is really important to acknowledge that there are those fears and concerns that, effectively, if DHBs do decide to do this, there might be some loss of personal choice, and we need to recognise that and balance that up against the very clear evidence in favour of the health benefits. Thank you.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Barbara Stewart to speak on the first reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 2016. The current position of councils is that the local authorities fund drinking water supplies from rates and they are responsible for the decisions on fluoridation.

I just want to kind of cut to the chase and say up front that New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. I am not here, and neither is New Zealand First, to debate whether we fluoridate or whether we do not in our communities. We are leaving it up to the communities themselves to decide that. What we are here today in the House to do is talk about the amendment in this bill. It amends Part 2A of the Health Act 1956, and the other provision of the amendment is the fact that there are two offence provisions should the water supplier actually breach these provisions. Also, the fact is that this bill will actually need to look at, in detail, the ongoing consequential issues, because we are going to have to look at amending the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 as well.

The reason why we are opposing this bill is that, primarily, locals know what locals need best. Fundamentally, this bill is shifting decision making from local councils over to district health boards (DHBs), and I do not think that this has been addressed in the House enough so far by previous members. I want to discuss the fact that this provision of movement of powers from local councils to DHBs—we need to consider the fact that, over all of our DHBs currently in New Zealand, they are actually sitting there $65.5 million in the red. That is $65.5 million, in total, deficit for DHBs around this country. New Zealand First does actually wonder, and stresses, too, about further burdening our DHBs by having this provision of decision making moved from local councils over to DHBs.

New Zealand First does believe this is a contentious issue and that the final decision should be made by the people of New Zealand by having a referendum, primarily because consumers have the democratic right to decide what is in their drinking water, by referendum. It is up to local councils to enact those changes. We have already seen around the country a number of local councils take up this issue of holding a referendum. I can see that in Thames, Coromandel, Hamilton, Hastings, and Whakatāne they have actually made movements to do this. However, with the Whakatāne District Council, the council went against what the referendum actually preferred.

In reality, with the shifting of the responsibility from local councils over to our DHBs to manage this, New Zealand First believes unequivocally that locals should actually get to decide, that there should be a local referendum held, and that that referendum should be binding. We believe that it is a continued theme from this Government to remove the democratic right of locals to choose for themselves. This bill—although I understand the intentions are actually good and it is about oral healthcare, it still does not remove the fact that there is a familiar pattern of removing the rights of locals to have a referendum and decide for themselves what the position is for their community.

I want to also add that what I did think about when I was reading through this bill was the fact that this bill provides two offence provisions. The Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne himself answered a question that I was going to ask, and that is, what if they are a private water supplier to the council? How do they fit under this provision? The Associate Minister answered the question so eloquently, which basically said that all private water suppliers that are used by the council are actually Government-owned. So what we need to look at is the fact that this is an issue.

One of the offences actually carries a maximum penalty of up to $200,000, but if a private provider commits an offence then they get away with it scot-free because, apparently, this area is outside of the scope of the bill. If they commit an offence, they get away with it scot-free and do not have to pay up to the maximum penalty of $200,000, and for every other offence after that initial act there is a $10,000 offence penalty for those breaches. So these private water suppliers are absolutely getting away with not having to worry about being penalised, not having to worry about committing an offence, and there is no responsibility for that side of the suppliers back to this Government and back to our ratepayers. That is a huge concern.

I also looked at the fact that—what is this bill really telling us? I have come to the assumption, from taking a little bit from other speakers in the House today that, really, the Government does want compulsory fluoridation and is simply hiding behind their DHBs to actually enforce it. I say that the Government needs to be up front and take responsibility for compulsory fluoridation itself. On that note, we do look at the fact, and know, that the Ministry of Health does currently hold all of the scientific evidence on the fluoridation of drinking water, and that is fine—that is fine and I have got that. The issue here is why then is the Ministry of Health not providing the information to local councils? What is so hard about the left hand talking to the right hand in this instance? There is clearly an issue there and I think that the Ministry of Health should be required to actually give local councils and the public all of this information on fluoridation in their area to allow the people to make their own informed decisions via referendum.

As I said at the start, I am going to cut to the chase and say that New Zealand First is absolutely opposed to this bill, because it takes away the decision-making process from locals to decide what is best for locals, in terms of who holds the provision of power to actually be the overarching decision makers on whether to fluoridate or not. I do think that, yes, this bill actually—and the issue—is a hot potato, and quite simply passing the buck from one to the next is not good enough. We do think that the public need to be fully informed; we do think that the public have a right to take this into consideration and that each area should actually be holding a referendum, and make it binding. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Just with reference to the member speaking on behalf of New Zealand First, Ria Bond, who has resumed her seat, I dispute her contention that by transferring responsibility for decision making around the fluoridation of water, delegating it to district health boards (DHBs), that somehow this decreases the democratic ability of New Zealanders to make decisions around their health. I am just noting for the member that district health boards, of course, are made up of elected members. This is a health issue and rightly belongs with the DHB, which has got elected members who care enough to put their names forward to stand for that and, therefore, have a close interest in the oral health of their particular population.

I would also note that local authorities traditionally struggle to make traction on initiating the provision of fluoridation. In fact, some councils have gone backwards and have voted fluoridation out—to the cost of their community, in my view. So it is a heartbreaking sight when the surgical bus rolls into town, into many parts of rural New Zealand, and on the list for that day is oral health for children. That is when mums and dads and grandmas bring the little ones in so that they can be sedated and have some pretty heavy-duty dental work performed on them. It is heartbreaking because it is so preventable and one of the many ways of preventing tooth decay is, of course, fluoridation of the water supply. There is a lot of science that backs up the fact that fluoridation in a drinking water supply has an incredibly beneficial impact on the downward rates of tooth decay.

Since we do appear to have some youngsters in our gallery, who are very welcome obviously, I just note also that every time you go to a dentist—which, of course, is free to every child under 18 in New Zealand—they ply you with toothbrushes and toothpaste. Back in the day they used to make little characters out of the cotton wool. So it is not an unpleasant experience. This is a great step forward for oral health in New Zealand and I support this bill.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. Dental decay is a disease of poverty. Fluoridation of our water is a public health measure, just like immunisation, and it is something that we should most definitely do. The number of our children who were hospitalised last year as a result of tooth decay was a thousand more kids. A thousand more were hospitalised because of serious tooth decay. We must prevent tooth decay, and fluoridation of our water is one way of doing this.

Many New Zealanders in Aotearoa New Zealand are just getting by. They are exposed to the brutal winds of the housing crisis, under-resourced health and education, and a lack of decent work with fair wages. These are ongoing issues that New Zealand must urgently grapple with. Labour stands ready to tackle these issues. This particular bill, Labour is very supportive of it. However, unfortunately, it is one that merely gives a lukewarm attempt to deal with a serious problem that has significant flow-on consequences.

Poor oral health strongly affects a person’s health generally. There is evidence that connects poor oral health with other chronic diseases, for instance, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and respiratory diseases. A lot of these diseases are ones that Māori and Pacific communities suffer from; they are, as I said earlier on, diseases of poverty. There is also an immediate impact on our children. A US study by the American Journal of Public Health reported that children with poorer oral health care are more likely to take a lot of time off school. They are also much more likely to perform poorly in school overall.

New Zealand has very high rates of preventable tooth decay. In 2013, for example, more than 40 percent of all 5-year-olds and more than 60 percent of Māori and Pacific 5-year-olds entered school already having tooth decay. These are not just statistics; these are kids whom I see in my electorate in South Auckland. These very same children, children from high deprivation areas such as Manukau East in South Auckland, are far less likely to be involved in primary healthcare services as newborns, and as they grow they are much less likely to have contact with oral health or dental health services.

I know that fluoridation has been a fraught issue for some of our communities, and some of our territorial authorities have gone back and forth on this issue. I also know that in the last local body elections, especially in the district health board (DHB) elections, some have cynically exploited fluoridation as an issue. However, as an electorate MP, because this is an issue that a lot of our kids actually suffer from, I am passionate about improving the health outcomes for Māori and Pacific and low-income families. I am determined that every child in New Zealand should have the best start in life. This means good health from conception onwards; it means healthy housing; it means access to an education system that is staffed by qualified, registered teachers from early childhood education onwards; and it also means having good oral health.

Poor oral health can undermine a child’s ability to do well at school and it can impact them both in the short term as well as in their long-term health status. Water fluoridation has been endorsed by the World Health Organization, the WHO, as a successful preventative measure for preventing tooth decay. The Chief Science Advisor here in New Zealand as well as our president of the Royal Society have also found that there were no adverse effects from the fluoridation of public water supplies after many decades of exposure. Both recommended that towns add fluoride to their water supplies. This has also been proven as a cost-effective measure.

Expanding the reach of fluoridation to those 1.4 million Kiwis living where water supplies are not currently fluoridated will help lift New Zealand’s health status, especially for our kids. I urge this Government to show leadership and to put some real measures into the fluoridation of our water instead of palming this off to the DHBs, which will not actually start making decisions about drinking water fluoridation until at least 2018. Even our Minister of Health, the Hon Jonathan Coleman himself, has stated that fluoridation is widely acknowledged by health and dental experts as the biggest initiative to prevent tooth decay. Evidence tells us that children with access to fluoridated water experience 40 percent reduction in dental decay. Labour supports this bill. Thank you very much.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I would choose to speak on this issue, I guess, with some experience as a former mayor who had to put up with the debate on fluoride numerous times in my time with councils. I would have to say that I did not get elected to a district council to talk about health issues—if I wanted to do that I would have gone to the district health board, I think. My electorate is a classic example of one of the real challenges of this issue, where the Manawatū district has fluoridated water and the Rangitīkei district and the Ruapehu district do not. In fact, the Ruapehu district did have fluoridated water in Taumarunui until it chose to withdraw it.

So I think the indecision around this issue is a big one for our communities. After giving it some thought, I think that the transferring of this responsibility to the health boards is appropriate. I think one of the challenges of this issue is going to be the funding of this decision to fluoridate water when there is no current technology in place in those councils to do it, because it will lead to some increase in ratepayer costs. So there is going to be a requirement for those councils and the health boards to work out how they manage that process.

Otherwise, I think this is a very positive move. I think it will lead to some much better decisions being made and, hopefully, it will lead to some continuity as to the decision-making process around fluoridation of our water, as health boards will have both the experience and the knowledge to implement this in a manner that I think is appropriate and applicable to our communities.

Just very briefly, I have already talked, I think, about the fact that it is essential that health boards make this decision, but it is a very difficult topic for councils, as they do not have the understanding of the science and stuff that is presented to them. It is difficult for them to pick it up, and I think that the fact that it has been given to the health boards will be very positive. So with those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I think we should actually—when we get to the subsequent readings of this bill—change this to the “Kick the Can Down the Road On Fluoridation Bill”, because we know in this House, as well-informed members of Parliament, that after many decades of fluoridation in our major cities there is no evidence whatsoever of an adverse health effect caused to the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in New Zealand who are already drinking fluoridated water and have been doing so for decades now. There is not one shred of evidence that they, as populations, are suffering an adverse health effect from their water being fluoridated. There is ample evidence from New Zealand and around the world that all of those populations are obtaining a health benefit from better teeth and an economic benefit from lower dentist bills.

So, upon that basis, why is the Government kicking this down the road and adding to compliance costs at a regional level by requiring a separate decision to be taken in every district health board (DHB) in New Zealand, rather than the Government acting in the interests of all New Zealanders and taking the decision, on the basis of science—not witchcraft, not scaremongering; on the basis of science—that we are satisfied that water in New Zealand should be fluoridated? Because that is the choice. The Government could, today, be passing legislation that says all municipal water supplies over a certain size—if you want to have a tiny threshold for the tank on the hill that might cost a bit—should be fluoridated. All large municipal water supplies should be fluoridated. If we were not satisfied that it was safe for district health boards to say that they can enforce fluoridation, if we did not think it was safe for them to do so, we would not be letting them do so. Given that we are satisfied that it is safe to give the discretion to district health boards to do so, why can we not just say it is safe for New Zealand populations to have fluoridated water?

Why are we kicking this down the road? Well, it is because the Government has not got the political courage to protect the interests, particularly of those people who cannot afford to go to a dentist if they get rotten teeth. We have not got a Government that is willing to act in the interests of New Zealanders. This adds unnecessary compliance costs. We will see people—some of the nutty people in our society—standing up and running for election onto district health boards on a non-fluoridation ticket. That is what this bill is inflicting upon New Zealanders. This bill could go so much further and actually solve, once and for all, this problem of a local, unscientific approach to the fluoridation of water. On this principle, next the Government will be going out there and saying that it is a matter of discretion for the local hospital boards as to whether they let their doctors prescribe antibiotics. How nonsensical would that be? Let us just get on and make a decision in New Zealand that we should be fluoridating water. This is, at one level, better than the current situation in that we cannot even enforce this at a DHB level, rather than a council level, but why can we not just take the obvious decision and say that all water should be fluoridated?

At this time, I think we should also consider what would be—this is effectively a form of mouthwash, is it not? Well, in this time of uncertainty in New Zealand politics, I wonder what would be the approach of different leaders of the National Party to this? I suspect that if it was Bill English, we would have “Ye Olde Fashioned Fluoridation Recipe”. It would date back to 1990, which is when he came into Parliament in his 20s. We would be expected to put up with a very old recipe being used again. I am not sure that is right. I think that there have been a few developments since 1990, and that there must be a better answer for the future of New Zealand than ye olde fashioned mouthwash.

Of course, Steven Joyce’s option would be even dimmer. He would actually just put it out amongst his friends. He would actually want to see which of his crony capitalist mates would actually help him the most if he introduced some form of support for the sale of mouthwash on a corporate basis. I think that we would have the crony capitalism mouthwash if it was Steven Joyce. Judith Collins—she would import it from China.

Kris Faafoi: Acid.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Acid, my colleague says. No, it would not be acid, but I think it would be the Oravida mouthwash, and it would be imported into the New Zealand market with the assistance of Chinese border officials. There would not be much chance for a New Zealand - produced mouthwash to cure this problem. Then, of course, the westie mouthwash from Paula Bennett—well, it would not really matter. None of her constituents would get it because they are living in cars without tap water, so that would not be a very suitable solution, either.

We will have to look forward to see—I do not know what Jonathan Coleman would do. Hopefully, Jonathan Coleman would actually apply a bit of medical rigour here and actually overturn this decision. Given that he is the Minister of Health, he could already have done this, but you would hope that if he had a little bit more power higher up the tree he would take a rational, science-based decision and at least say, as a doctor, that he was convinced that there were, on the basis of millions of people already having fluoridated water in New Zealand, no adverse health effect from the low doses of fluoride that you need to prevent tooth decay, which are not adverse to other aspects of health.

Of course, if you drink pure fluoride you die. It is a poison in those concentrations. But at the low concentrations that are needed to improve oral health for your teeth there is no adverse effect, and, if it were otherwise, it would be proven around the world by now, given that millions of people already have been, if you like, experimenting on fluoridated water for decades so far. So I would hope that Jonathan Coleman would take a science-based approach. Obviously, he is not, because this bill has been through his office and has his support in kicking the can down the road and leaving it to health boards, rather than this Government showing leadership.

I tell you what: really, after 8 years in Government, you do have to conclude that a Government has run out of ideas when its idea for fixing the fact that we have got populations that are not getting fluoride in their water is not to make them put fluoride in the water but to kick the can down the road and leave the decision to someone else. The Government is so timid in respect of matters like this that it will not take the obvious decision and conclude for itself, on the basis of the advice that it obviously had from the health officials that fluoridation of water does not cause adverse health effects—because if it had not had that advice it would not be giving the power to district health boards to fluoridate their water. It has obviously had the advice that there is no adverse health effect of fluoridating water for dental health, and yet it will not say that all population-level house supplies ought to be fluoridated.

If there are some people out there who have their own view as to why they think that they are different, I think they are wrong, but, of course, no one is forcing them to drink the water. No one is forcing them to not filter the water or to distil the water, if they are one of those people who have that strongly held view. But the Government should not allow the interests of the more than 99 percent of the population whose health we can improve to be held hostage by a few people who are being unscientific, bringing forward illogical arguments that are not grounded in fact, when in fact we have had this experiment around the world and in New Zealand for decades. Millions and millions of people around the world are getting the benefit of fluoridation with absolutely no credible evidence that there is an adverse health effect as a consequence.

The Labour Party will be supporting this bill, but the Government could solve the underlying problem instead of kicking the can down the road to health boards.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill here in its first reading. What this bill does is find the balance of decision making in a local, regional, and central government space. We always hear of the complaint that central government gives too much to local government, but then, on the converse, we also hear that local people want more decision-making. What this bill does is place the decision making around fluoridation in the regional setting of district health boards. Those boards are made up of appointed and elected people from our communities. What is important to see is that the context of making a decision is the context of public health, rather than at a district council level, where it becomes a political football. This bill is doing exactly that.

We understand that this whole topic of fluoridation is very controversial. I believe that putting the decision-making place at district health boards is a very positive, very proactive way to enable the decision making to be done locally and regionally, but from a health context. Thank you; I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Customs and Excise Bill

First Reading

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): I move, That the Customs and Excise Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Customs and Excise Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. This bill replaces the 1996 Customs and Excise Act, which is over 20 years old. Some parts of it are 50 years old, and others are over 100 years old. The current Act has been extensively amended, which has created a complex piece of legislation that is difficult to use. The prescriptive style of the Act also means that frequent amendments would continue to be required. Modern legislation that is easy for people to use and understand and that can keep up with modern business practice and technology is long overdue. The aim in rewriting the Customs and Excise Act is to make it less prescriptive and more principles based, and to give the flexibility needed for future technology or business practice changes.

Customs provides a range of services to business, and the quality and speed of the service makes a difference to businesses’ ability to perform, to grow, and to export. The businesses and industry organisations that use and are regulated by this legislation have contributed to identifying what needs to change, and they have also been extensively involved in the process of developing the new legislation. The bill enables Customs to deal with considerable growth in both trade and travel, and with the security challenges that that growth brings. It represents the modern border environment, and it is fit for purpose, supporting economic growth by making it easier for traders to do business and by reducing the burden on businesses and compliance costs.

Customs’ core role is not changing. The bill supports the movement of legitimate travellers and goods across the border, and provides the legal tools needed to protect New Zealand. The major change that this bill makes is to modernise the language and the structure of the Customs and Excise Act to make it simple to understand and to use. The bill also includes a number of policy changes. These include increasing transparency of the obligations for users of the Act, reducing unnecessary processes, an increasing efficiency and flexibility for traders, and enabling some possible future changes in technology to be accommodated.

In particular, the bill increases efficiency and flexibility in the import and revenue collection system. Importers who bring goods into New Zealand when it is not possible to know the final value of the goods at the date of import will find it easy to comply, by being allowed to declare a provisional value for imported goods, and then providing Customs with the final value once it is known.

The bill also gives Customs the ability to issue binding rulings—that is, binding rulings on the valuation of imported goods. Valuing goods for the purpose of import can be complex, and this provision will provide importers with more certainty over how much duty they owe, and a new customs process for appeals over duty assessment, which is cheaper and simpler, will be available.

The bill recognises that storing business records offshore or in the cloud is the way business is conducted today and, by allowing this, it will make compliance with customs rules a lot easier. Everyone who interacts with Customs is expected to comply with the rules and processes that are in place to protect New Zealand, and to support the collection of Crown revenue. This bill makes it clear that those interacting with customs systems must meet high standards and provide timely information. For example, those applying for a Customs-controlled area licence must meet certain criteria, and excise manufacturers will be required to submit nil returns. For the small proportion of those who do not comply, the bill updates and extends Customs sanctions, so that they maintain relativity with sanctions added more recently to the Customs and Excise Act, and also with comparable sanctions in other Acts.

Administrative penalties will apply to all export entries, to ensure that Customs has accurate information to give to our trading partners, to give them assurance and to protect New Zealand’s trading reputation. Trade Single Window users who persistently make errors when entering information can have their registration suspended or cancelled. The vast majority of users are responsible and accurate in their use of the system, and this sanction will be a last resort for those who continue to make errors, in spite of other penalties and interventions by Customs.

The rules around locally grown tobacco will be tightened, to reduce the potential for avoiding excise payments and for supplying tobacco illegally. The personal allowance will drop from 15 to 5 kilograms per annum, and that is from about 100 to approximately 30 cigarettes a day. Also, tobacco curing will be included in the definition of “manufacture”. An infringement notice scheme for minor offending will replace petty offences, increasing the fairness and transparency of the system. The details of this scheme will be set by regulation.

The bill confirms the majority of Customs’ existing powers. The bill continues to recognise the balance needed between protecting privacy and ensuring that Customs can continue to protect our border. New mechanisms will enable customs officers to undertake controlled deliveries, to investigate smuggling, and to perform administrative functions offshore, like the pre-clearance of cruise ship passengers.

Public concerns about Customs’ power to examine and access electronic devices have been addressed through a two-stage search threshold, based on officers having reasonable suspicion or belief of offending. If a customs officer asks, travellers crossing the border will be obliged to make all goods in their possession available for examination. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that an offence has occurred, an electronic device is able to be examined. Where an officer has reasonable belief that an offence has occurred, a fuller search of the device may be required. Searchers of e-devices are confined to information on those e-devices only, and not information that is remotely accessed. If the officer has neither reasonable cause to suspect nor reasonable cause to believe that an offence has occurred, the officer cannot search an electronic device. This is a reduction in the powers that a customs officer has now, but the Government believes that this approach is a good balance between protecting people’s privacy and providing Customs with the powers it needs to detect and prevent smuggling and to manage national security risks.

The bill also facilitates greater information disclosure from Customs to other Government agencies, for security, law enforcement, national security, and a range of Government services. The way Customs uses and manages information will be made transparent in a framework that specifies the purpose for which information can be disclosed to and accessed by other Government agencies. Sensitive, personal, and commercial information will be protected in new provisions, and the arrangements will be developed in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.

This bill balances the protection of New Zealanders with individual rights. It provides transparent and easy-to-use legislation that makes individual and business obligations clearer, and improves assurance over the collection of revenue. It is flexible enough to enable Customs and businesses to adopt future technology and change the way they do business, making it easier to do business, which supports economic growth. The majority of the bill will come into force on 1 April 2018 or 6 months after the date of Royal assent, whichever is later. This date has been chosen to avoid implementation during the busy summer season for traders and travellers. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak at the first reading of the Customs and Excise Bill. I would like to say at the outset that Labour will be supporting this bill to select committee, and I am sure that our members on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will be listening closely to what will no doubt be a number of submitters, because this is such a broad piece of legislation. As the Minister of Customs has said, this is a complete rewrite, basically, of our customs and excise legislation. It is a hefty bill—some 370-odd pages—and it is all about hauling our customs and excise laws into the 21st century.

As we know, Customs is the oldest Government department of Aotearoa New Zealand, so it has played a crucial role—and it does play a crucial role—daily in our economy. As the Minister has stated, the wording of the existing Act—the 1996 Act—dates back some hundred years, so it is definitely in need of updating, and I commend the good work that has been carried out to bring this bill to the House. The work started on this little review, I believe, back in 2013, and there was quite a significant period of consultation with affected industry people, and all other individual citizens and businesses that interact with customer service, and that took place last year. So there has been a lot of preparatory work preceding this bill.

I just want to focus on a couple of aspects. When we are thinking of Customs, as the Minister has said, it is about supporting the legitimate movement of travellers, of trade, and of goods across our borders. So it is a vital service that we have, but it also collects revenue and it also plays a role in protecting our communities from harmful or prohibitive goods that may enter our country illegally. Customs has quite a broad-ranging function, and all of those functions are expressed in this bill modernising the way that Customs carries out its work at the border.

Just to provide a bit of background. It is not just international travellers—members of the public—who will be affected by this bill, but also, potentially, online shoppers and a whole range of businesses that interact with Customs, that basically move goods and travellers and products across our borders. I am talking about airports and seaports, airlines, cargo operators, freight forwarders, commercial importers, customs brokers, exporters, shipping lines, storage operators, and even yacht and small-craft operators. So there is a broad range of Kiwi businesses that daily have to interact with our customs laws, and they have found it increasingly difficult in recent years to deal with the ever-changing technology, to be able to adequately comply with the law, while also being able to get on with their business. There has been a lot of work go into this bill.

I would like to equate the Customs Service with a process that is going on at the moment in the National caucus. If we think of what Customs does at the border, that is exactly what the National caucus is doing at the moment. There is a parade of passengers who are lined up and only one of them can make it through to that esteemed position of leader of the National Party, and that is exactly what Customs does through its monitoring, its assessment, and its processing of folks at the border.

We have Mr English, obviously—Dipton’s favourite son—who is there at the border hoping to be processed, hoping to get that passage through to that lofty position. We understand—we have had word today—that “Crusher” Collins, Judith Collins, is also throwing her hat into the ring. She is lined up in the passenger queue, hoping to get processed through. We have also got Jonathan Coleman. He is lined up there, too. He will be processed. I am sure the National Party caucus will be looking intently and scrutinising each of these aspiring passengers—

Dr Megan Woods: Will they be reading their emails?

RINO TIRIKATENE: That, too. There will be a lot of work going on, I am sure, and a lot of conversations happening over the next week, much akin to the work that is going on at our borders daily, carried out by the good folks of the New Zealand Customs Service. But I digress. I want to return to the bill, but I thought that was a very good analogy of the intense work that is undertaken by the good folk of the New Zealand Customs Service at our border.

Of course, we have heard throughout the Minister’s kōrero about the use of cutting-edge technology and innovation to keep our border safe, and transformational programmes to do all this flash technology, which is obviously part and parcel of our fast-moving lives in this modern world. I would just take the House’s time to draw attention to some of those projects that the Customs Service has embarked on in recent years. It is no secret that there have been epic failures, and I refer to the Joint Border Management System (JBMS). We are still waiting for Customs to deliver that system 5 years after it was due, with a price tag that is at least $50 million greater than the actual original budget that was approved by Cabinet. That is one example of supposed cutting-edge technology that is to be rolled out by the Customs Service.

In all the great rush to make things quicker, faster, and more flexible, we need to ensure that Customs is delivering on producing what it says it is going to do, because we know, as a fact, that the risk and intelligence tools, which were the central part of the Joint Border Management System, have not been delivered. They will not be delivered, we understand, until sometime towards the end of 2017. They will not even be delivered by the IT contractor that got paid over $100 million to do that job. IBM failed to deliver the risk and intelligence tools that were a critical component of the Joint Border Management System.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: INCIS Mark II.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely INCIS Mark II, Novopay, and every other IT debacle that has been undertaken by this Government. I do want to stress this point, because if someone was to do a case study on how not to roll out and how not to deliver on a major IT-build project, it would be JBMS. We understand that the eventual delivery of the so-called risk and intelligence tools, which IBM gave up on—or, should it be, Customs gave up on IBM to deliver—is now being moved in-house, within Customs. Customs is going to come up with and deliver some type of risk and intelligence tool.

The critical word around this whole IT project is the first word “Joint”. This was supposed to be a joint IT system between the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Customs Service, and, unfortunately, MPI is not benefiting at all from this system because there is nothing there to help MPI. I am not talking about the Trade Single Window. I am talking only about the risk and intelligence tools in protecting our borders, and biosecurity, and keeping those nasties out, so we can protect our very important primary industries across our country.

I just wanted to make the point that this is an important piece of legislation but we have seen, all too often, the failure of Customs to deliver on this. But, apart from that, this is a worthy piece of legislation, and we will be supporting it at its first reading. Kia ora.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is good to see the Labour Party is supporting this bill, and we look forward to other parties in the House doing similarly, as well. I think this is a good piece of legislation. All members of Parliament should recognise that we have a role to play in keeping our borders safe and secure, and that is one thing that, I know, many people in this House talk of many times. Now is the time for them to show that they actually follow that in their actions, by supporting this bill.

The current legislation came into force in 1996. Although this is not a substantive rewrite of it, it does go through and add a bit of an update, to take into account more modern times. So there are some business-focused initiatives in it; some of those enable Customs to make issuings over the valuation of imports, and that will give them greater certainty. These rulings can be binding. The bill makes explicit the process for declaring a provisional value for imports where values cannot be known at that time. There will also be some relaxation of restrictions on businesses and their storing of records.

There are also some changes to the sanctions involved, with a new infringement scheme—similar to the one used by the Ministry for Primary Industries. That would give an easier mechanism to deal with petty offending. The range of penalties will be increased to ensure consistency with comparable penalties in other legislation.

Probably one of the easiest things to talk about and discuss will be around the examination of electronic devices and other goods—namely cellphones—that travellers may be coming through with. That is something that many people will take into account when looking at this legislation. There are also some rules around information disclosure, the passenger name record, and other changes. So this is a good bill, and we look forward to it passing through this House.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on what I think we could describe as a reasonably uncontroversial piece of legislation that Labour will be supporting. I do not think there has been anything as exciting happen in the customs area since SmartGate that we are here to look at. As other speakers have traversed, this is a piece of legislation—

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.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call this evening on the Customs and Excise Bill. I have noticed that we have a good trend in this Government of looking at legislation that has been in place for a number of years—and, in this case, I am obviously talking about the Customs and Excise Act—and looking at opportunities for improvement. We have done this in a number of older Acts across a raft of areas of government, and now, of course, we are turning our minds to customs and excise.

Clearly, when you are looking at a piece of legislation that has been in for, in this case, over 20 years, there is always opportunity for improvement. The bill that we have in front of us to reflect on tonight reflects a determination to make it a modern framework. We have spent quite a bit of time out with the various stakeholders to get their feedback to ensure that what we have put in front of the House this evening for initial reflection reflects their particular perspectives. In particular, this bill replaces the 1996 Customs and Excise Act with modern legislation that streamlines and simplifies procedures for more effective border management. We all understand how critical border management is to our economic performance as a country, and this bill talks to a wide array of improvements that we certainly look forward to getting feedback on.

One of the areas that I have particular interest in is the ability of Customs to be able to examine electronic devices and other goods, and unlock some of the coding that, perhaps, hitherto has prevented Customs from being able to get a sense of the risk that is potentially at our borders. As always, you have got to reflect on that balance between personal freedom and the protection of the New Zealand border, which is in all of our interests. I think we have landed this in a particularly good spot, but I am sure that through the select committee process we are going to get, I think, quite a lot of feedback in respect of that.

I think this is a good advance on the historic Act, and reflects a Government that is committed to ensuring that we are always looking for opportunities for improvement. I look forward to the debate that we will have at a select committee to discuss the various options that are in front of us here today. Thank you.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to address the Customs and Excise Bill in its first reading. There is obviously a need to update and modernise this bill. We recognise that there are aims and potential improvements in terms of streamlining our customs procedures, reducing the amount of time and cost to importers and exporters, modernising legislation, and introducing an intention test that would single out those errors by individuals who defraud customs as opposed to those individuals who are accidentally caught up in making a mistake with their customs declarations. So we welcome these aspects of it.

We have three major concerns about this legislation. The first and most critical concern is the powers given to Customs to access electronic devices. Electronic devices for most people are part of who they are these days, particularly those who are under 40 years old, and there has been significant concern from submitters in submissions to the discussion document. There were sweeping powers sought by Customs in the discussion paper and after pushback from the Privacy Commissioner, the Ministry of Justice, which advised caution, political parties, including the Green Party, and NGOs we saw some limitations that were added to the provisions on access of electronic devices. The issue here is not only access to the devices but divulging the passwords and decryption of those devices.

There are concerns from submitters in a number of areas. Firstly, for tourists and business visitors this may be an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy and they may resent it. Secondly, businesses might be forced to divulge commercial secrets in the process of divulging this information. There are, for example, consultants who sign contracts that would explicitly prohibit them from releasing confidential information without a court order. There is no court order provided in these powers given to Customs, merely a suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that there may be a criminal act.

Thirdly, there are, in fact, significant amounts of personal information that we all store on our electronic devices and, personally, I would not want customs officers to see some of my photographs, thank you very much, of my family and myself in some circumstances. We have our financial records, we have our medical records, we have our emails, and this legislation would also give access to our credit cards. In fact, much of our lives are on these electronic devices.

Finally, sensitive information may fall into the wrong hands. This is not just a spurious concern; in fact, there are cases such as the Switched on Gardener case where overzealous cooperation between Customs and the Police led to the misuse of information. All of these instances from submitters give rise to serious concerns that there are dangers here in the potential granting of powers to Customs that exceed the necessary powers in order for it to undertake its tasks. Furthermore, there are some concerns about how effective this is going to be anyway, in so far as the power to access devices does not give Customs the power to access links to those devices, and these days much of the information is stored on the cloud or other storage devices, which are remote from the handheld devices. So, in fact, if Customs is after this information, then there is no guarantee that they are going to physically have the information on the electronic device itself.

Fourthly, if somebody wanted to not give over their passwords or their decryption, then they would be fined—as far as we can understand from the proposal so far—$5,000. If we are looking to perpetrate serious criminal activity, then $5,000 is probably worth paying in order not to be found out. So we have some concerns over the effectiveness of these provisions. The question comes as a balanced right. Customs can already access devices for suspicion of money laundering, terrorism, or smuggling if it gets a warrant under the Search and Surveillance Act. So the question is: is the provision of further powers to Customs a breach of privacy without sufficient safeguard? That is our concern. We need a clear threshold and we need due process, and we regard the bill as not having yet provided that in draft form.

A second area of concern is increased information-sharing with other agencies. Amongst the 91 submissions to the discussion paper there were a number that raised concerns about sharing of information. Although there are some protections of biometric data, name, and intelligence generated by Customs, there are still concerns about the sharing of information widely amongst Government departments, particularly given the previous incidents of unauthorised release from Government departments through mismanagement in the past. We welcome consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and others, in order to tighten up some of these safeguards.

Finally, there is a set of issues where we would look to ensure that the Customs and Excise Act is actually fit for purpose—for example, one of those is in the area of transfer pricing. Under OECD emerging initiatives on base erosion and profit shifting, the transfer pricing issue becomes absolutely crucial. We would want to make sure that the bill includes sufficient powers for Customs and sufficient safeguards to ensure that transfer pricing is able to be dealt with, so multinationals cannot get away—as they all too often do at the moment—with shifting their profits to places with low or non-existent tax rates.

With those provisos, we would support the bill going to the select committee. We will look to engage constructively with this bill in the select committee. We would hope that there will be assurances to these concerns provided in the further development of this legislation. Thank you.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this Customs and Excise Bill that is before the House this evening. Unfortunately, the New Zealand First caucus has not had the opportunity to discuss what appears to be a reasonably comprehensive bill. Today we stand to support this bill to the select committee so that we can use the democratic process, which includes listening to the public. Only after careful examination and analysis will we be in a position to highlight the merits and demerits of this legislation. Only then will we be able to take a clear stand and either oppose or continue to support this bill.

On the face of it, this bill seeks to modernise and simplify the current legislation. We will support this approach, as this would build better controls at our borders—controls that would prevent illegal firearms, for instance. We note that this bill will allow more flexible powers to protect New Zealand. We hope that that does not mean opening up the gaps that already exist. We note that the bill will enable greater information-sharing amongst Government departments, such as Customs and IRD. If that works for Customs and IRD, then we will hope that the same approach also works between Corrections and Police, so that our communities can be kept safe.

The bill seeks to make it easier for New Zealand traders, which is good. We will support economic growth by making it easier for New Zealand businesses to do business. New Zealand First is looking forward to learning more about how this bill will enable the adoption of future technological changes. This is future-thinking, and we like that. If only we could be certain that the technology will be used to close some of the gaps. At the moment, 90 to 95 percent of the consignments at our borders are not physically examined, so we hope that this bill will do something to fix that fault in our system, and almost all of those consignments will be examined to prevent the import of illegal firearms also.

New Zealand First looks forward to more debate and to the select committee process, so that these concerns can be addressed and better legislation can be enacted. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): This bill is a very good bill, sponsored by the Hon Nicky Wagner—thank you very much for the work that you have done on this, Minister. This bill brings forward this piece of legislation—the activity that surrounds it—by 20 years; it replaces the Customs and Excise Act 1996. If we think about the last 20 years, changes have taken place around not only technology but the incredible movement of goods and people across borders and the incredible open world—but also the world in which we live where security has become so much more important. So what this bill does is that it brings everything up to date. That is so critically important if we want to continue to live in that open world. We take that openness for granted, but we must have legislation, we must have regulations, and we must have provisions that protect our freedom. This work on this bill does precisely that. I want to just commend the Minister for that and the good work that she, along with her officials, has done. It is very, very important for New Zealand.

The area of electronic devices: we live in the world of data—the big world of data, the world of information, the world of communication—where so much happens. We no longer live in the age of snail mail; we live in the age of instant communication globally. All of that is important because, as we know, there was the situation that happened in the United States of America where there was information on a device and there was great difficulty for the federal officials to be able to access that information in order to protect the security of their nation. We have to find the balance between personal privacy and public good. I guess this is the work of Parliament all the time: finding the balance to protect the public good but also protect the privacy of individuals.

As technology advances and as the capabilities of enforcement agencies also progress, we have to—from time to time in this House—update legislation. Here we are putting a number of aspects of primary legislation into regulations so that the updating of that can be concurrent with the increase in technology—so we are more nimble and more able to address these issues.

I am very happy to stand and support this bill and the work that the Minister is doing. We are a trading nation. We have an incredibly large border for our population. We have a great coastal area, but we are increasingly connected by more and more air travel. And, of course, freight is a major, major component of our economy: 85 percent of that which we manufacture in New Zealand is exported, and, of course, we bring in at least the corresponding value in imports as well. Protecting our borders from all sorts of issues but also understanding the financial transactions that need to take place with imports and exports is very, very important. This bill very, very proficiently addresses this. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I just begin by acknowledging the men and women of our Customs Service. As an Opposition MP, I do not think there has been a Government department or service that has been more willing to let members of Parliament tour their facilities. I had a tour of the Christchurch airport earlier this year. A number of our MPs went and visited Northland and met some of the chaps at the port just out of Paihia. Also a select committee that I was on about 2 or 3 years ago had the pleasure of visiting one of the operations centres in Auckland. I think it is one of the most open Government departments that we have been able to get access to in our term in Opposition, as that comes to an end.

But there are a number of issues within this piece of legislation that we do want to highlight and that, I think, are going to get some serious scrutiny during select committee. I do note that the Minister, Nicky Wagner, in her contribution to this debate said the powers around the ability for customs officers to search devices are being scaled back. I do also point towards the contribution by the Green MP Barry Coates around its concerns, because we do hold some similar concerns as well. If you listen to the Minister I think you would hear, or you would think, that nearly all of the powers to be able to search devices have been rolled back and are nowhere near the powers that the Customs Service currently has—but you only have to look at the clause that pertains to the access to devices and the powers that customs officers may have, to see that they are still there.

We are really going to relish the opportunity to grill officials at the select committee around what kind of powers customs officers still do have. If you do look at Part 4, clause 207(2)(c), it states in plain English that customs officers will have “the power to require a user of the device to provide access information and other information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary to allow a person exercising a power … to access the device:”. In plain English, that is saying that if a customs officer is suspicious, and a number of other things are ticked off, they can ask anyone for their PIN number or their passcode to that device.

I think some clarification is needed—and I am sure that the Privacy Commissioner will be called in to the select committee—about what actually that allows those customs officers to do. Is it access to just the device itself, so any information held on that device could be accessed—that might be stored on that device—or does it give them the ability to say: “Well, now we’ve got access to your device we also want access to any account that you may have on that device.”? I think that is a really important question for this Parliament to ask of the officials, and of the Privacy Commissioner, because although we want the integrity of our borders to be as strong as possible we also have to be aware of the civil liberties issues that we have when people who may be suspected of things that they may not even be guilty of will have to give Customs access to their personal devices, and potentially the accounts that they have on them, whether it be an email account or something else.

I think there are some serious issues, and I think the Government may be trying to downplay this issue by saying that the customs officers do not have as much power as they currently do. But the powers that they will still retain in this piece of legislation are still significant. I think most people would feel that getting access to someone’s phone or someone’s device is an encroachment on privacy. I am sure the Government members at the moment—given some of the stuff that is happening over there—would not want their devices to be encroached on, because of the nature of some of the messages that are going round the National Party caucus at the moment. I do not know. It is just a guess that there might be a bit of interest in a few messages flowing between three particular people to the other 56 members of the National Party caucus. So the privacy of those messages, I am sure, is important to them.

There is, seriously though, another issue that I want to talk about, and that is the biometric information that Customs is currently using, and some question marks about how it can use it, and how that can be stored. Anyone who uses Facebook these days will be, kind of, either happy or a little bit worried that when a photo of you goes up on Facebook it automatically recognises somebody’s face—and that is the kind of technology that is being used at our borders currently, to make sure that people who should not be coming into our country do not get past the border.

In the past, information contained within a passport has been our main check to check someone’s identity. I think that is date of birth, country of origin, what citizenship you have—obviously—where you were born, your full name, and all of those details. They have been the main checks to make sure that people who should not come into New Zealand are not there. But anyone who has been through SmartGate in the last 7 years would know that if you go through the border now it is just a simple look down the camera and the system recognises you.

There have been, I understand from my reading of the regulatory impact statement—and I would like to thank Lianne Dalziel for giving me that tip of always reading the regulatory impact statement—some issues around how that information can be used and retained by Customs. I do want to note to the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, who spoke before me, that times are different: it has been 20 years since the parent legislation was put in place, technology has come a long way, and the ways used by the people who are trying to get around the integrity of our borders have also changed. The simple visual check of a customs officer holding the passport up these days is not good enough any more, and so that is why we are having the biometric checks. There are issues that Customs has had, I think, with some of the use and some of the sharing of information and some of the storage of biometric information, and the updates within this legislation are good.

In conclusion, Labour will support this bill going to a select committee. We do believe that it takes some very wise and necessary steps in the area of keeping the integrity of our borders. We do want to put on the record again, and we do want to stress, that we still have some concerns about the ability of customs officers to access information. That is not to say that we do not believe there are situations where that is valid, but it is to say we want to make sure that there are safeguards in place so those powers are not so broad that those powers can be used inappropriately by agencies—whether that be Customs or anyone else working with Customs—and also whether that information could be shared. Those are the kinds of issues that we want to see and will be raising questions about at the select committee. We note that they have been raised by other parties, and we just want to mark it with the Government that we do not think that it has put enough safeguards in there and there are still some questions to be answered.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Good choice.

STUART NASH: A very good choice—Hobson’s choice, I think. Look, it is good to stand up and talk about this piece of legislation. I must admit, though, when they say that this is—where are we—refined and remediated legislation, I look at a bill that is 380 pages and go: “Shivers! Is this really simplified? If it is, the other one must have been hell of a long.”

The other thing also is Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth, said that a lot has occurred over the last 20 years—and I agree with him—but some things have not changed. Twenty years ago, Bill English had been in this House for about 10 years already. He was already an experienced MP 20 years ago. Some things do not change. And, I must admit, looking over at the National benches at the moment, I do not think I have ever seen Paula Bennett sitting in the back row. We know why she is doing it now. What did she promise you, Mitch? Foreign affairs, mate—foreign affairs? Ha, ha! Jami-Lee Ross, have you got finance—finance? Police? Oh, police—oh, OK. There is a lot of horse-trading going on here, is there not? But, anyway, back to the bill. Ha, ha!

Hon Paula Bennett: No, no, you can talk about me.

STUART NASH: Oh, OK, we will talk—ha, ha! Not again. Anyway, a lot has changed, and there is no doubt about it. In a bill that is 20 years old and with the way that technology has moved, like a number of members have spoken about, it is important that a bill such as this is not prescriptive, because if it is, it goes out of date really, really quickly. I mean, who would have believed 10 years ago that we would be doing so much on our phones at the moment? In fact, I remember the first time I got a text, I got really annoyed and thought “Why don’t these people just pick up the phone and call you?”, and now texts are a great way of communicating when you do not want to speak to someone.

But, that aside, technology is moving at such a rate that we cannot have a bill that absolutely says “These are the things that have to be done.”, if using a particular device. We have to have an enabling piece of legislation that takes into account not only the technology that exists today, which we know will be slightly different from the technology that exists when this bill actually gains its Royal assent and commences, which I think is April 2018—so in that period of time we know that technology will change. Facebook will update something. The new model of—well, not Samsung. The new model of Apple will be out there. The new iPad will be doing things that it cannot do at the moment. So we have got to have legislation that keeps up with that.

I am going to actually be a little bit of a devil’s advocate with regard to something that my colleague Kris Faafoi talked about, and the Greens and others—about digital devices. The bottom line is that this is how we store data these days. This is how we carry information. You know, on your iPad or on your phone—on any technical device—there could be any manner of data that could be insidious, illegal, or used to perpetrate illegal acts. I believe that in this day and age we do need to have the ability to access that data if—and this is the rider on this—there is reasonable doubt or if there is a reasonable expectation to believe that that digital device is being used for illegal activity.

There will be a whole lot of tests around this. We know that. When you walk through an airport at the moment they pull you aside randomly, they run something down—apparently they are looking for bomb residue on your suit on your jeans—and they test it. That is random. What I do not think we would want to see is someone grabbing your mobile phone and doing a random password search and checking all your photos. But I do not think that is what we are talking about. I completely agree with Mr Faafoi when he said that the customs officers and the Customs Service—certainly in my interaction with them—are highly professional and do an absolutely brilliant job.

Having said that, we are requiring them to be much more professional as well. When you think that even last year alone, $284 million worth of P came across our borders. That was twice as much as the year before and I suspect it will be about half as much as next year. So what we are facing these days is a level of criminality that is becoming so much more sophisticated in the way it does things. The only way we are going to keep up with these chaps is if we are one step ahead of them—or at least playing on a level playing field. So, first and foremost, the legislation must reflect that. Secondly, the customs officers must have the ability to use the most up-to-date tools to get in and to extract information from people who they reasonably believe are engaged in some form of criminal activity.

There are some other things that go on in this bill, but the one thing that I come back to quite a bit is our global reputation. You know, we do have a very good reputation. I do actually think—I am being serious on this—that one of the things that this Government has done very poorly is actually proactively managed our global brand—i.e., I think that some of the things this Government has done have devalued the value of our brand, but that is a conversation for another day that I am happy to have with anyone if they would like me to.

But what I am saying is that in the First World, our allies, and our friends, and other customs services around the world as well, expect our customs laws, processes, procedures, and technologies to be of the absolute highest standard. If we are to be seen as a First World country that is dedicated to going really hard against the people who are bringing in drugs, who are trading in electronic data, and who are—heaven forbid—bringing in kiddie porn, or anything like this, then we need to be sure that we not only have the technology but that we are perceived to be First World, and that the bad guys out there know that when they come across the border into New Zealand the odds of them being caught are not 10 percent, like burglaries, but about 99 percent. Let us face reality. People are always going to get through our borders with contraband, illegal stuff, or information that we just do not want in this country. However, if we are really that good—and I believe we are and I believe that this legislation goes a long way to getting us there—then let us form an international reputation of having some of the strictest but fairest border controls in the world.

I looked through the departmental disclosure statement and there are some points in here that will be hotly debated by the select committee—I have no doubt about that. For example, under the title of “Privacy issues” there are a number of points that I know, as a country, we need to be sure are in place but not used to abuse the system. For example, this bill, according to the statement, does create, amend, or remove the provision relating to the collection, storage, access to, and the correction, use, or disclosure of personal information. This bill does contain provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property. This bill does create or amend decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests that are protected at the moment by another law, and this could have significant impact on those rights, obligations, and interests. It is acknowledged that this is what the bill will do.

But I also note that the Privacy Commissioner has been consulted about these provisions, certainly in the development of this piece of legislation. But the most important thing—and a number of other members alluded to this—is not just that we understand the Privacy Commissioner’s report, not that it is made available, but that the Privacy Commissioner and the staff from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner are able to be quizzed just to understand their concerns. There is no doubt about it: every time the rights of an individual are compromised in some way, shape, or form, there has to be a good reason why that is done. This bill does do that, but looking at the legislation, looking at where we were, looking at where we want to be, and looking at the future—let alone the present—this is a very important piece of legislation that I think is really going to add to our border security.

I look forward to it passing through the House, but I also look forward to a number of the concerns that members have with regard to this. Thank you very much.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 29 November.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Our children rely on us for so many things. They rely on us to feed them, provide them with shelter, nurture and teach them, respond if they get sick, and keep them safe. Our babies rely on us for everything. Government policies make many of these things easier or harder for parents and caregivers. A shortage of affordable housing means some children are living without adequate shelter. Wage and income support policies mean that 148,000 children are going without what the rest of us consider the basic necessities of life, and over 155,000 more are living in families in income poverty.

The reluctance of Government services to acknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi and protect kaupapa Māori services or tikanga Māori responses means that whānau and tamariki are continually being alienated from the cultural systems that support them. Tamariki Māori are being taken from families and placed in care, and are hurting. That is the history and that is still the current reality for many tamariki in this country.

We hear a lot of rhetoric in this House about the importance of caring for our children, and I do not doubt for a second that every single member in this House does care, but there seems to me to be a fundamental unwillingness to acknowledge the centrality of Government policy in shaping the options for families, and, indeed, the centrality of Government policy in causing harm to children. We cannot debate child welfare without acknowledging that. It is not something to be scared of. In fact, it is something to embrace because improving the welfare of our children becomes so much easier when we acknowledge that.

A truly inspirational, truly new child protection service would recognise that as a starting point. A truly inspirational service would not be focused on a group of children defined ahead of time as vulnerable, according to randomly established factors that ignore the impacts of fundamental Government policy settings on their lives. A truly inspirational service would have been developed in partnership with Māori. That is what the Greens stand for, but the truth is we would have supported this legislation even if it did not start at that point.

But there are things in this legislation—although some are good, there is a core point that worries us so much that we cannot support this legislation. I think it is really important to note that this is legislation dealing with the care and protection of our children and our babies. This is legislation that should have cross-party support, because it is legislation that any person, I would imagine, would want to endure and to be adequately tested to the point where there was support across the House for it—because it matters so much. But, sadly, from the point of introduction of this legislation, the Government has continued to lose support for it, as the community concerns have become louder and clearer. It is a real tragedy that we are, in fact, unable to support this legislation.

The Minister for Social Development talks about the failings of the Child, Youth and Family system and how we need to move beyond that. I would also like to note that the Green Party is not saying we think things are OK at the moment. There is no one who could read the reports of the Commissioner for Children, or the many reports that have preceded that, and say that things are OK at the moment. But when the Minister talks about the failings of Child, Youth and Family she is talking about the failure of the State and of successive Minsters, and at the heart of that, where so much harm has been done, particularly to Māori, there has not been consultation. These proposals have not been developed using that knowledge of those communities, and we are led to a point of not having the right solution to the problems.

Although the Green Party supports several measures in this bill, with caveats, we are so profoundly disappointed at this overhaul that only consulted Māori in such a completely token way. We cannot support legislation that would enable Serco to come in and uplift children from families. We cannot support legislation that would enable that. If the Minister tells us they would not do that, that is not their intent, well, then, there needed to be protections in this legislation to stop that possibility. But those protections, although asked for, were not put into this legislation, and we cannot support that.

We hear from people in the communities that discussions are now happening between people in the new ministry-to-be and people in the community about the need to establish and create a market that will support this legislation. We clearly have a different world view about what is needed to provide our babies with a healthy environment to grow up in. For the Green Party, that is not a market; that is a community and a society that supports all of our children and our families.

We are being asked to support, in this piece of legislation, radical reform that enables the dismantling of the State child protection services without a policy platform of what that will look like. It was kindly described by the Office of the Commissioner for Children as outstripping the policy process. In other words, we do not know what we are being asked to sign off on with this piece of legislation, and considering the very high level of anxiety that this bill may enable with that dismantling, the Green Party is taking a precautionary approach and opposing this bill.

We share the fears that were raised by several submitters that the bill is looking at providing extra roles in an already deeply fragile, underfunded community sector where they will now be expected to take on additional roles without adequate funding. We have seen that happen with the children’s teams and we are seeing that happening every day. Our children are put at risk when that happens, because these agencies are doing their best with not enough, and we cannot support the extension of that.

We also share the concerns that the delegating out of these roles could further reduce transparency and accountability, and when the Office of the Commissioner for Children said it does not have the budget to follow it up properly now in a centralised system, in a devolved system where they have no more money, how can we be sure of the safety of those children? When we have been hearing through the historic claims process that some claimants have been bringing cases of abuse that have been dismissed because, although the child was placed there by Child, Youth and Family, they were not in a Child, Youth and Family institution, we seriously have to consider the implications of this piece of legislation for any child who may be abused in the future, that this bill potentially enables the State to abdicate responsibility for what may be mass harm for children if the centralised system does not have proper oversight and systems. That is a very real concern with this legislation, and it may also undermine child abuse investigative expertise, which is already struggling to work in a centralised system. We cannot support this legislation. It risks the safety of our children.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, although I acknowledge the issues that the other Opposition parties have with this bill. Frankly, throughout the whole process, from the first reading through to the select committee process, New Zealand First has had similar concerns or issues or questions or queries around pretty much that same provision, around the delegation. But there is a key difference, or key reason, why New Zealand First is supporting this bill. I think what I feel obliged to do is go through the five aims of this bill and explain why New Zealand First supports four out of the five and has an issue with one of them.

The main reason why New Zealand First is supporting this bill is what it does. The issues that have been brought forward by the Opposition parties are about how the Government, or the ministry, intends to achieve that “what”. Those are the problems that the Opposition parties have. But New Zealand First is concentrating on what will happen when this legislation passes, and the main aim is to achieve a child-centred system. The first way it does that is by “extending State responsibility for care and protection to a person’s 18th birthday …”. As a party, that is what we know we want to stand up in the House and support in order to ensure it goes through in legislation. There may be some issues, or caveats, with the other four ways in which the Government wants to achieve that aim, but that cannot diminish the need for care and protection to include those 17-year-olds.

The second aim is to encourage the participation of children and young people in decisions that could significantly affect them, and New Zealand First supports that. It wants to ensure that “wherever possible, policies and services have regard to the views of children and young people”, and New Zealand First supports that aim. It aims to support “the set-up of independent advocacy services, with a particular focus on children and young people in care”. New Zealand First agrees with that. But the one aim and issue and method that we have an issue with and concern about is that the Government aims to allow “a broader range of professionals to perform a wider set of tasks to help identify and meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people.”

We have heard both sides of the argument in this House. We have heard the Government and the Minister for Social Development stand up and say that this is a great thing because professionals from outside of the scope can be employed to help social workers or to help care for children. We have also heard from the other Opposition parties that this can be manipulated and that because of the ambiguity with which the legislation is written it is a very subjective provision. That is the problem; it is a very subjective provision. I would hazard a guess that if it were a Labour Government, or if it were a Green Government, they probably would not have that much of an issue with that provision, because they feel that they would have the right perspective with which to use that provision. They are just judging the current Government and the perception of the current Government and how they will use that, and New Zealand First does have concerns with that as well because of the ambiguity. There is a little bit of confusion with why the Government wants to allow the delegation of non-qualified individuals, because there is legislation going through the House—or it will do shortly—with the mandatory registration of social workers.

The whole intent of ensuring social workers are mandatorily registered is to ensure a few things. It is to ensure that the quality and standard of training, the quality and standard of performance for those social workers, the actual robustness of the roles and the intent of the individual social workers—that they are appropriately qualified and, basically, that the safety of the children is at the centre, which, funnily enough, is the intent of this legislation. So why would we have the structure and the process that social workers need to be mandatorily registered to ensure the quality of that service—not only the quality but having the right people doing the right job and for the right reasons. Why would the Government need to stipulate that for social workers and yet, in this context, allow that delegation to go out the window?

I would just like to highlight how ambiguous the actual legislation is, by reading out just one of the clauses in the legislation: new section 7C(2), inserted by clause 7. This is where it stipulates where the chief executive does delegate to those people who are not registered social workers, and it states that whomever that chief executive chooses, that chief executive must be satisfied that “(a) the person is appropriately qualified to perform the function or exercise the power, taking into account the person’s training, experience, and interpersonal skills;”. That is, quite obviously, a very subjective paragraph. The second point is that that does not actually rule out the concerns that New Zealand First and other Opposition parties have with this. That does not rule out the use of private companies, or the entire privatisation of that role. Does it rule out the use of Serco, for example? The answer is no.

Another point that I would actually like to make on that little piece that I read out is the fact that, at the moment, there is consultation going on in regard to family violence—about the workforce capability framework and the necessity for anyone who does that role, who works within those roles, to ensure that they have some core competencies. The question is: does this bill, and that part of legislation that I read out, apply to the core competencies? Or does it include the essential core competencies within the framework? I would just like to read out where it states that the Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence work programme is inviting consultation on the draft, and the purpose of the framework is to outline the core capabilities that members of the workforce need to have to effectively deliver family and sexual violence services and to better collaborate and coordinate with each other.

If you compare the need for the social workers to be registered, the need for people who work within the family violence sector to ensure that they have core capabilities, surely there needs to be some sort of need within this—one of the most important parts of any legislation that goes through the House that is working with our vulnerable children—to have some sort of structure and certainty on whom we have, what jobs they are going to be performing, and for what reasons.

Although we do quite clearly have some issues and concerns with one specific part of the legislation, we will be supporting this bill through. We will because we know that, in the main part, if we do not support this bill, then, in principle, we will be asking to support the status quo or be asking to accept the status quo, where 17-year-olds cannot get that help, care, and protection. I feel confident that when New Zealand First is in Government next year, this could quite well be one of the pieces of legislation that will be pulled out, and that could quite well be one of the pieces of legislation, and provisions within that legislation, that we would have a very, very close look at. We will be supporting this bill with some reservations and concerns.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is indeed a great pleasure for me to stand and speak tonight on this Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This bill is a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment to the most vulnerable members of our society: our young people and their families. It is abundantly clear that more of the same is not sustainable and is not fair on our young people. As the member who has just resumed his seat, Darroch Ball, said, the status quo is not acceptable. Thanks to the work of the Hon Anne Tolley, this Government is embarking on an overhaul of the current system.

There are three main objectives in this bill. The first of those is to make the new system child-centred. This objective was reinforced to the Minister through the Youth Advisory Panel, and that Youth Advisory Panel was made up of young people who had direct experience with the system. They made it very clear that they want to stop the State experimenting with their lives. They want their first care placement to be the best place for them, within a long-term, loving, and stable home, wherever and whomever that may be with. They also want their views to be taken into account when decisions are being made about their lives, which is not an unreasonable request.

The second outcome that is aimed for with this bill is to extend the statutory age of care and protection to the age of 18. Many of our young people at the age of 17 are still involved in study. They need the age extension so that they can resume their studies and graduate as they deserve to, without being removed from State care.

Thirdly, this bill enables services to be purchased so that children and young people get the support they need, when they need it, from a range of service providers.

There will be further law changes that will supplement this bill, and they will form part of this wide programme of transformation. For that reason, I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

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

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to address two provisions in this bill. The first is the intention to increase the age to 18 years, and the Green Party supports that provision. The second is the provision that says that the views of children will be embedded in the process. They are quite nice words but, of course, the devil is always in the detail with these things, and in this case there is just insufficient detail to prove that that will actually be the case. It is easy to say; it is much, much harder to do.

It is certainly good to increase the age to 18 because, in theory, it should give the children in State care more stability and more security at that point in their lives. And anybody who has been the parent of an 18-year-old well knows how much care and support they need, even well after that. The child’s views are very important when it comes to Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care. These children are often much older than their years would suggest, and they need and deserve a much greater say over what is happening with their lives. They need to be able to talk about the things that are happening to them, particularly if they are in foster care or in other agencies, because, of course, we know the disasters that can happen when children are ignored and do not have an opportunity to be heard about what matters most.

I would just note that neither of these provisions in the bill really provides that certainty for the Greens in terms of support, and what really concerns me is that in 2015 the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s report showed that, in 2014, 1,000 CYF children went missing. So there were 1,700 children that came off CYF books. Some of them aged-out at 17, some of them went into foster homes, but, of that 1,700, over 1,000 came off CYF’s books and CYF had no way of reporting what happened to those kids. Those kids went missing from CYF.

We can see some of the results of that, actually, because as agencies that we have all dealt with know—those that have been working with young people who are homeless—a very large proportion of homeless young people are those who are technically in State care, and they are away from State care. They have escaped from their foster homes or they have left CYF care because that care is inadequate to meet their needs, but those children, those young people, have no means to tell CYF what is going on for them—to be safe in disclosing information—and have no means to have any control over the living environment that they need to be well and safe and secure. So they just hightail it out of their homes and, not only that, CYF does not know where they are. In the 2014 year CYF could not report on the whereabouts of over 1,000 children in its care. Any changes in legislation that are going to change the way CYF works has got to address the reality for these kids. What is most important at the core of that is that those kids have the right to have a say about what is going on for them. None of us can know, unless you have been in State care, what it is like to be in State care.

As we know, this Government has ignored the views of thousands of adults who have been in State care and are now in the position to be able to tell us what was going on for them. What about the kids who are in State care now: the ones who are missing, the ones who are homeless, the ones who are living in parks or are shacked up with adults because that is the only way they can get some sense of stability, the ones who are in care at the moment and who are unsafe? How are they given any security, or any certainty, through this legislation that they can talk about what is happening to them and not only have their views heard but respected, and that action will be taken in their favour?

This bill does not do it. And if this bill does not do that, what is the point? All that this bill is doing is actually maintaining the status quo, which is that CYF’s care—as much as the people, the social workers, love those kids and want to care for them—simply is not a system that can support these children, and none of the changes proposed by Government can guarantee that those kids in State care are going to get the support that they need. It is pretty obvious in the provisions of this bill, which is why we are not supporting it. Thank you.

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

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This is the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill, and Labour is opposing this piece of legislation. However, I do want to highlight that we do support the extension of the statutory age of care and protection to include young people under 18, and that makes sense to us because we are talking about children.

I particularly want to acknowledge my colleague Jacinda Ardern, who is not able to communicate this on her own behalf, because she established the petition that asked for that exact legislative reform. I would also like to acknowledge Lifewise, Dingwall Trust, Youthline, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Wesley Community Action, and Christchurch Methodist Mission, because, in fact, they wanted the statutory age to be extended to 21. I do want to highlight that Minister Tolley has signalled that the next step in this process is to enable young people to remain with caregivers up to the age of 21, and also she has highlighted transitional support and advice up to 25 years. So we support that aspect of this piece of legislation.

However, the aspect that we do not support is that this bill also contains what we call a massive regression and dangerous set of provisions that will allow the chief executive to delegate statutory powers—legislative authority that currently can be performed only by Child, Youth and Family social workers—to contracted providers. The Minister has been really interesting because she talks about this being about a multidisciplinary approach, that there are many professionals involved, and that you have to be appropriately qualified, but she actually does not list who those appropriately qualified people should be.

In fact, what she did do was reference that the delegation needs to be supported by contractual obligations. So in fact what this House wants us to do is to enable the chief executive to delegate to any contracted entity the ability to take our children. And actually that is at the heart of our opposition, because central to the functioning of the Child, Youth and Family is a social work profession that already is supposed to place at the heart of that practice the best interests of the child. So what it really does for us is say: who should have the power to remove children? From our perspective it should be only qualified people. Those qualified people have up till today when this legislation goes through the House been qualified social workers. But what this piece of legislation does is open it up, actually, to anybody who has got a contract with Child, Youth and Family. So we cannot support that.

I guess in preparing for this speech what I am also interested in is that if any entity that has got a contract with Child, Youth and Family can take children I want to know what the requirement is in terms of placing children within whānau, hapū, or iwi. I want to stress that this particular piece of legislation is hugely relevant for our indigenous community—in fact, 61 percent of our children in care are indigenous children. The requirement in the current legislation is that those children, in the first instance, must be pleased within their whānau, but they must be placed within their whānau who have the capacity to care for the children. If they cannot find whānau members, then they are supposed to find hapū members. And then if they cannot find hapū members, they are supposed to find iwi members.

The reason that the legislation says that is that inherent to every child is the right to their whakapapa. It is the right to know who you are and where you come from and, if you are an indigenous child, who you are and where you come from is based on your pepeha: what your maunga is, what your awa is, who your marae is, and your ability to actually create an identity through actively being engaged in that identity through participation at the marae. So I want to know, actually, currently how many children get a cultural assessment? And will these entities be able to undertake a cultural assessment to ensure that our children have, as a right, access to those institutions that help them form a positive identity? I think at the heart of this piece of legislation is: actually is it going to be more harmful to our children and not provide care and protection as they should have and are entitled to? Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking a short call to support the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is a great bill, and I want to start by acknowledging the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, for bringing this bill to the House. We know that there will be more bills—to supplement what we are proposing in this legislation—coming to the House later on, which is part of the big reform of childcare in our country.

Although I also want to acknowledge the Social Services Committee. I especially want to acknowledge all the submitters for taking the time to make their submissions. Some of those submissions were from individuals and some were from organisations having direct, indirect, or general interest in this legislation. Overall there has been a lot of support from organisations involved in the sector, which is really good to see.

This bill is a great bill. It is designed to increase the age of care and protection for young people from under 17 to under 18. The other important component in this bill is that it also provides the opportunity for children to have their say, to be heard, and this is at the individual and also at the system level so that we can deliver better services for these children.

I also want to acknowledge the Youth Advisory Panel, because what I heard about the Youth Advisory Panel was really impressive. These children, those who were on the Youth Advisory Panel, have gone through the experience of being in State care. It was really good to see what they have experienced and how they would like us to transform the Child, Youth and Family system. The signal that we got from them was to stop experimenting on young people. I believe that is a very, very strong message from the Youth Advisory Panel, and that message that we got from the Youth Advisory Panel is actually supported by the report that we got from the expert panel. I want to acknowledge that panel, as well, because the report clearly said that the system is not centred around children. It is fragmented. There is not enough accountability, and what we are doing is actually not meeting the needs of young people, those who come into State care.

There are several groups that I want to acknowledge for their contribution on this legislation. As the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, spoke about, increasing the age to 21—yes, that legislation will be coming to the House, and the most important part of that is the transition support and the fact that those young people can come back for advice up until the age of 25. In this whole process the important thing is that there has been a lot of engagement with stakeholders, which includes Government agencies, NGOs, iwi, young people, and caregivers. So is a great bill that has support from sectors involved in this field, so I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): In making a speech about the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill, I really want to start by referring to a quote that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner used to start its submission. That quote is: “When I walk down the street I see families walking along laughing happy and it is hard, knowing that I don’t have a family like that.”

The whole purpose of this bill is to try to place children at the centre and create a system that better protects some of our most vulnerable children. We really, as a political party, as individuals who care about these children, wanted to see this bill do exactly that, and there are so many aspects of this bill that we do support. In fact, this bill contains a change that we have pushed extremely hard for, and that is a raise in the age of care and protection. It is something that we believe passionately in, and it was the basis of our support for this bill at every stage till this point. This is also the reason that we did support the bill at second reading.

But this bill also contains a massive, regressive, and dangerous set of provisions that will allow the chief executive to delegate powers that can currently be performed only by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) social workers. There is no ability for Parliament to have oversight of these powers and almost no checks and balances in the way they will be delegated. We cannot support this provision when it could allow any professionals, at the whim of the chief executive, to hold powers like the removal of children. We stated at the Committee stage that we would support this bill only if our Supplementary Order Paper 248, which removes the ability to delegate powers, was adopted, but unfortunately it did not pass, and therefore, I reiterate, we cannot vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

I just want to reinforce the fact that we did not come up with our stance alone by making a decision based on what we independently thought when looking at the bill. There were lots of submissions that came through that support the stance we are taking now. I do want to, alongside my parliamentary colleagues, also acknowledge every single one of the submitters who took the time to submit on this really important bill. In referring to the submitters, I do want to refer to comments made in the submissions that support the stance I have just spoken about.

We see in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s submission that it raised concerns about functions currently designated only to social workers being shifted beyond that to the chief executive to be used at their discretion. It questioned what this would mean given the current inquiry before the Social Services Committee on the Social Workers Registration Act and whether the two pieces of legislation are compatible. We, as the New Zealand First member pointed out, questioned whether or not there was compatibility there. On one hand, it seems like there is a dilution of power and credibility with the social workers’ role and the functions that they perform when we look at the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. When we look at this bill, it looks like it is diluting the power of social workers, but then when we look at the inquiry into social worker registration and what has come out of that in terms of recommendations, it looks like there is more weight given. So there were issues with compatibility, and that was pointed out by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s submission also raised the point that—basically, their submission on the Social Workers Registration Act advocated for all social workers exercising power under the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act needing to be registered. That is what the recommendation from the Inquiry into the operation of the Social Workers’ Registration Act 2003 has also recommended. In fact, I have to say there were two Opposition members of Parliament, myself and Darroch Ball, who had bills up in the ballot last year to try to push for that mandatory registration, but we had to wait for the Government to undertake an inquiry, not for any other reason, really, than the fact that it did not want that change to be made under an Opposition member of Parliament, which is disappointing.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner also pointed out that it wanted to recommend public transparency and accountability on how the power would be expanded in terms of the delegation of powers. That is something that we have always struggled with at the Social Services Committee, because no detail was provided. There was no transparency and no accountability. How could we possibly support that delegation of powers? It was not just the Office of the Children’s Commissioner that supported the stance that we are now taking in respect of this bill. The Human Rights Commission also raised concerns. It agreed with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner that there needs to be public transparency around the delegation of statutory powers. Citing one other submission, and that is from Barnados, it believes that there should be restrictions on the ability of the chief executive to delegate powers, and it also raised concerns about fragmented relationships for children and the need for monitoring and evaluation on how these decisions are made.

It is unfortunate that we come to the House tonight not able to support this bill, because, as I said, there are aspects of the bill that we have supported, that we have pushed really hard for. The first one I said was raising the age of care. We did support that. We support that move, and we really wanted to support this bill because of the fact that we have been behind that for a number of years, not just as we were considering this bill. We have supported a change in legislation to embed the voice of young people in care into decision making. Of course we support that.

Looking at the actual bill and some of the things that needed to be taken into consideration, the other aspect that we feel did not get enough attention when we were looking at this bill and considering it at the select committee was the cost pressures that CYF is under. Unless these issues are addressed, unless we can get some detail around the delegation of powers, we will continue to have concerns moving forward. In fact, we will be monitoring this space really carefully when this bill is enacted to ensure that it does not cause any harm to our children who are in the care of Child, Youth and Family.

It is unfortunate that we are in this place, but we gave it a lot of thought. A lot of conversation went on in our own team as to whether or not we could support the bill, given that there are aspects of the bill that we support strongly, but in the end we could not support the bill, given that the Government refused to take out that one part in terms of the delegation of powers. So we are in this unfortunate space, but just to reiterate what has been said tonight, Labour will not be supporting this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move, That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill will update the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987, and will make some of the key provisions in the Act more flexible and clearer for the industries involved. The Act is of critical importance to our horticulture sector. Most of the industries in the sector are small, but with many producers and exporters. The Act provides a framework for producers and exporters to collaborate on the export marketing of their products.

This is an enabling piece of legislation. Producers and exporters decide whether to come under this framework, and once they are under the framework, they decide on the marketing strategies for their export produce. Grade standards are a key component of their marketing strategies.

The Primary Production Committee recommended a number of changes to the bill in response to submissions received. As I said in my second reading speech, the changes recommended by the Primary Production Committee provide greater clarity and will improve the implementation of the amendments proposed in this bill. I want to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee. They did an outstanding job under the leadership of Ian McKelvie. The Government has supported all of the recommended changes that came through that committee.

The bill will make a number of changes to the Act, and I just want to go through those. There will be increased flexibility for the industries from the proposed multi-tier export licensing provision, with industries being able to choose up to five tiers of markets. They can choose to retain their current one-tier model, if they like. This change is about choice and empowering industries to optimise their returns from different markets. There will be more clarity around the entry and exit requirements. The industries will retain their ability to choose if and when to enter and exit from this export framework.

There will be more clarity, certainty, and transparency around the authority’s funding, and around the fees and levies that producers and exporters will be charged. The updated fines will improve the effectiveness of the enforcement provisions in the Act. The current fines were set in 1987—almost 30 years ago.

There will be greater need for our industries to collaborate in the markets in the future, as we continue to successfully market our produce and retain our reputation for exporting high-quality and safe produce. The Horticulture Export Authority framework has proven over the last 29 years or so that it works for the industries, and those industries will continue to benefit from this framework long into the future.

We all know, in this House—and particularly on this side of the House—that our primary sectors are indeed innovative, from orchard to farm, and right through to the plate. We are breeding new, highly successful cultivars at one end, and developing new high-value markets at the other. Our horticulture export sector has diversified into new markets. We are exporting produce to over 100 countries a year now. In 1995, 39 percent of our horticultural exports, by value, went to the European Union, and 20 years later, in 2015, only 21 percent went into that market. Our industries are developing new markets, as the Government seeks to improve market access for these products around the globe.

Population growth and increasing prosperity through Asia is resulting in increasing demand for our premium horticulture products. That will continue into the future. For our industries to benefit from this, with premium prices in the growing and new markets, we must not only remain innovative and competitive; we must also collaborate together in these markets. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act provides that framework for collaboration.

With the upcoming changes to the Act, our industries will have a more flexible tool to target specific market opportunities in these different markets and to minimise the cost, which is hugely important. It is a small entity. It has very low overhead costs, and this bill will not change that. The bill updates and futureproofs the existing provisions in the Act, and it provides more options and clarity for the industries. I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to speak at this third reading of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. I know that this third reading is welcomed very much by not only the export authority but also the constituent groups made up of all the product groups. It has been a long time in the making. There is a statutory review of the authority that happens every 5 years, and I believe that the last two 5-yearly reviews have said “The bill needs updating—the bill needs updating.”, and so here we are, finally, being able to complete this process, much to the appreciation of the horticultural groups that comprise the authority.

This is a wonderful model, and I do want to acknowledge the great agriculture Minister from the fourth Labour Government, Colin Moyle, who promoted this authority and, you know, did some wonderful things in his time, including the introduction of the quota management system for fish. He also spearheaded this piece of legislation, and what we have seen over the past 30 years is that this has proven to be a really successful model. It does not compel companies to be part of it; it is completely voluntary. It is not a single desk, and it is not completely free-market. It is a voluntary model whereby product groups and the members within those product groups can come under the export authority’s framework. As part of that framework, they are to have an export marketing strategy, and the exporters must be licensed and must abide by that export marketing strategy. It is a unique hybrid model but it has proven to be successful, and I understand that over that 30-year period the export value of the various product groups has grown tenfold—now around $300 million in exports. That is a testament to the work that the export authority has done.

It is a very lean organisation—very lean—and it is supported only by the product groups. It receives no Government funding. But, obviously, it has proven its worth over the past 30 years, and all we are doing here, as the Minister for Primary Industries has noted, is making things a bit more flexible and a bit clearer, and we are futureproofing the workings of the export authority so that it can continue its good work.

When I mention the product groups, just for the benefit of those folks at home, we are talking about avocados, blackcurrants, buttercup squash, chestnuts, kiwifruit—but only to Australia—persimmons, summer fruit, tamarillos, and truffles. We are talking about those particular products. The producers have formed their own product groups, they have export strategies in place, and those growers and processers must be licensed in accordance with the Act to be able to conduct their business. The reason they do that is that by being able to collaborate they can be more competitive in those international markets. It is making sure that they can have the scale—that there is the scale to be able to compete, and to have consistent, good quality standards, which will uplift the reputation of our products in those particular markets. It is a win-win. It is all about cooperating to compete, and Kiwis and New Zealand companies do that very well, as evidenced by the export authority.

I do commend the work of the Primary Production Committee, under our chair, Mr McKelvie, and my senior colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor. We are very thorough in our work, and I am pleased with the amendments that we have made to this bill. It is not to the liking of everyone in the horticulture industry who is affiliated with this body—I guess, particularly, in respect of the entry and exit requirements. They wanted a slightly lower bar, but, in the end, we thought it was important. For an entire product group to come under this framework it would need broad support, not only from growers and exporters but also from the small ones and the big ones. I think we have found the right balance in that requirement, and also in a whole host of other provisions, which will all assist in the workings of the export authority to grow the exports. That is what we want—to grow the exports from the various product groups.

I certainly hope that the next 30 years of this export authority are even more successful than the first 30 years. I would hope that we can see the introduction of new product groups, new product sectors, to the body. There certainly are little fledgling producers out there, and I guess for them to get the scale to be able to sell their products into international markets, this is a proven model that will be well suited to them. So I certainly hope that they can expand, and with that expansion they can grow their export earnings, which all benefits us here in “New Zealand Inc.”

I do not think I intend to go on much further, just suffice to say that I do support this bill. I do support the model, and the good work that the export authority has been doing these past 30 years. I am sure that it will continue to assist our New Zealand companies to sell their delicious, high-quality, premium products to discerning markets worldwide and generate foreign exchange earnings to improve our standard of living here in Aotearoa New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It has been a long Tuesday. I just looked at the cricket score before I stood up, and I can assure you that the day has got longer.

Dr Megan Woods: What is it?

IAN McKELVIE: It is not good; they got 380-odd, and we are about 20-odd, without loss. Back to the bill. It is a pleasure for me to take a short call on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill and to, I guess, outline some of the work that was undertaken by the Primary Production Committee to get to the point we got to, and to explain the value of this bill to New Zealand horticulture or agriculture, actually, but horticulture in particular. There are nine horticultural-based export industries that operate under this bill currently, and, as alluded to by the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, there are a number of others that operate on the fringe of it and may well, as a result of these changes to the bill, come into it at any time they wish.

The ones that operate under it currently are the avocado exporters, the blackcurrant exporters, the buttercup squash exporters, the chestnut exporters—and I bet you not many of you knew there was a chestnut exporters authority—the kiwifruit exporters, the persimmon exporters, the summer fruit exporters, the tamarillo exporters, and the truffle exporters. And, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know well what was part of this bill as you were part of the select committee that dealt with it.

The object of this bill is to create, I guess, extra value for New Zealand horticulture and to give its members the opportunity to trade in a manner in the world market that enables them to trade as a collective and in a strong environment. Whereas individually they would be picked off in a world market place, collectively they have significant strength, and so this bill gives strength to that opportunity for them, and enables them to compete in a world market that is very competitive.

It is also worth noting that the horticultural exports from New Zealand have grown significantly in the last few years, continue to grow, and, I think, have reached some $4 billion now. But it is also worth noting that some of our environmental policies that we are implementing around New Zealand have the effect of limiting land-use change in the future. One of the interesting things with horticulture, as it grows very rapidly—and I think it is probably going to, in the future, be the significant grower in New Zealand agriculture—is that it needs the opportunity to acquire more land and to use more land as it goes forward. Some of our environmental policy around the country at the moment is precluding that opportunity. So that is a challenge for us in New Zealand, as we move forward—to get that resolved and to enable the horticultural sector to grow as it should.

If you think about our horticultural sector, the big opportunity for it is to put fresh produce into our markets. Some years ago, fresh produce into Asia would have seemed a distant hope. But nowadays, modern transport and the very quickly cheapening air routes around the world are enabling us to put fresh fruit and produce into those markets very quickly, so we can provide fresh-to-the-supermarket-door in Asia any time we wish. That is really the future for New Zealand agriculture and horticulture. So that is a real opportunity for us, and I think it is something that will be a priority for this industry. So the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill enables the industry to collectively gain strength very quickly in that area.

There were some changes as this bill came through the select committee and through the Committee of the whole House—which was very brief. The bill will be passed with the following amendments as recommended by the Primary Production Committee. The first is to clarify that a vacant office is considered as an office holder being unavailable—you might think this is minor—and also applying this change for the purpose of identifying who the alternative chairperson is, when the chairperson is unavailable. It does seem a little pedantic, but none the less that is quite an important change to this legislation. It enables those authorities to move with nimbleness, I guess.

Other changes also enabled the clarification that grade standards can be included in export marketing strategies. They changed the interval between proposals for amendments of tiers of export licence, from at least 2 years to at least 1 year. They added a requirement for the authority to consult the Privacy Commissioner before amending certain information-sharing agreements, which is quite important and obviously a part of a lot of legislation we pass through this House. They also clarified the provision relating to fee and levy regulations.

There was Supplementary Order Paper 247 put forward during the course of the Committee stage; that was to add a levy provision to the legislation. The levy provision was necessary because a legal interpretation of what was previously thought to be fees, I guess, proved that, in fact, they were levies. That Supplementary Order Paper amendment needed to be added. It needed to be added to clause 31 of the bill, inserting new section 62, and changed the word “fees” to “any fee or levy”.

I have got the role of thanking my select committee for a great job. As Rino Tirikatene said a moment or two ago, the select committee gets on pretty well with these things. We got this done. It is a pleasure for me to support this bill in its third reading, as it goes through the House. Thank you.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would like to say to the member Ian McKelvie, who just took his seat: cheer up. It is not that bad. Twenty-six for none in the fourth over—not that bad. Maybe it is the kind of week that that side of the House is having. I call that a good start.

We are here at the third reading of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. There are a number of points the previous speaker made that I would like to respond to. First of all, I would like to commend the Primary Production Committee. Clearly, this is a piece of legislation that is aimed at updating a piece of legislation that was past its use-by date. It needed updating. It is a piece of legislation that was passed in 1987. That was 3 years before Bill English entered Parliament, so it really did need updating, in terms of that.

A number of these changes that the committee made were warranted and sensible changes. They were around the need for the industries covered off under this agreement to have the flexibility to be able to respond. I think the first change that the select committee made, about when an office holder is unavailable—in the amendment that was made to clause 10, inserting new section 13A, identifying who the alternative chairperson is when the chairperson is unavailable—could be seen by some as quite prescient in terms of what the members on the opposite side of the House are doing. But do not worry—you can always look at the caucus rulebook to find out what those rules are, as well.

The other changes that needed to be made around this legislation were the tiers of licences and, of course, the rules that needed to go around the sharing of information. This is a piece of legislation that is about seeing product groups cooperate for industry good, working together to market particular product groups. That requires the sharing of information. Whenever we do require that kind of sharing of information, there have to be robust rules around how that is done. Likewise, when you give statutory power to a body to levy, that is also something that we need to make sure is circumscribed and that the right rules are around it, because, fundamentally, the groups who are asked to voluntarily sign up and be part of this authority have to have faith. Because it is a voluntary scheme, they have to have confidence that that is the case.

The previous speaker, the chair of the select committee—who has done an able job on this legislation—made a good point in his speech. He talked about the need for us to be able to identify and allocate more land for horticulture in our future—that it is a high-value export for us that is very much part of New Zealand’s economic future. I could not agree more. I hope that member will see that a land-use strategy is what is required, and that introducing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme is an absolutely critical part of deciding how it is that we use our land for future use. I was heartened to hear those comments from the speaker opposite, saying that he is up to face the challenge of how it is that we identify more land—and it is through progressive measures like looking at how it is that we use our land in a holistic way.

The kinds of products that are coming into this industry speak to the diversity of our horticultural industry in New Zealand. The horticultural industry is an industry that I worked with before I entered Parliament. I think it is an exciting industry and one that is very much part of New Zealand’s future. When we see the diversity of the groups coming in there—as previous speakers have mentioned, from chestnuts to squash and various products in between—it is very exciting.

I think one of the key things this legislation does, which was really required and shows how the world has moved since 1987, is allowing fit for purpose marketing in different markets. What we know is that where we have seen New Zealand horticultural products succeed, they have had very targeted marketing strategies into particular markets that have been based on the benefits of the particular cultivar that is being used. Often a screening process is used to identify the type of cultivar that will be fit for that market and then marketed through there, but also a lot of very sophisticated consumer research occurs within many of our horticultural industries in New Zealand. They know that if they want to market into a particular market, health and wellness may well be the way in one market, but it may be about security of supply in another market, and it may be about “pure New Zealand” in another. I celebrate any legislation that allows this kind of flexibility for groups to be really strategic and to target their effort where it is going to benefit the particular industry group that it is benefiting.

We all know, and I think can all agree, that the export value of our fruit and vegetables is going to be very much part of New Zealand’s future. We know that this is a more sustainable use of our land than many other land uses that are out there. We can just look at the dollars. We had $50 million of exports in 1988, a year after the principal Act was passed, rising to $300 million last year. This is growth that we need to make sure we are putting the legislation in place to support, and we need to make sure that our industry sectors can succeed. Labour is happy to support this legislation.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thirty-six for nothing.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill is updating legislation, as has already been said, and is quite timely and necessary. What this bill and the Horticulture Export Authority are about, in essence, is marketing, but it is not necessarily about marketing in the sense that people think. Although consumer preferences are very important, you cannot get to the consumer if you do not get through the gatekeeper, and having scale is one way we can get through the gatekeeper.

We can look at the Australian market, for example, which is very similar to our own market here. There are two supermarkets that control most of the market, really, in Australia, and it is pretty similar here in New Zealand, although it is changing in Australia. I suspect the market is not large enough for it to change here, with Costco, etc., and ALDI in Australia. We do not have those two entities operating in New Zealand. But it is what it is, and to get past those gatekeepers you require scale. Although a farmers’ market works really well and it is great to be able to talk to the person who grew the products that you are purchasing, that is not possible in a supermarket in any way at all. To get through those gatekeepers you need to have security of supply, a uniform product, and all of the things that this bill allows a group of exporters to get together and provide. The only way to get to those consumers is to get through those gatekeepers in that way.

I think it is too often forgotten that we can grow fantastic produce in New Zealand, and we do, but the big missing part of the puzzle is how we get it and market it into the market, into the consumer. That is where all the profit is made, and it is also the hardest nut to crack. You can invest probably almost as much money in that section of the industry as you do in things like land, equipment, and machinery to process and grade all of the fruit or vegetables or whatever it is that you are exporting. So that is a really important point that I think is why this bill is so valuable.

I think the tiers of licences also make a lot of sense. They allow people to enter the market in different grades and at times that suit their particular industry. I like, as the Minister said, the term “orchard to the plate”. It is absolutely a good term and it is the way we should think about things in our industries in New Zealand anyway, because we cannot extract the maximum return without that.

This is a valuable piece of legislation. It is timely. It will be welcomed by the industry, and I believe it will be welcomed by consumers all around the world who will get to sample New Zealand’s best horticultural products, marketed in a uniform and sensible way. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. I do agree with the previous speaker, Mr Smith, that how we market to the consumer is crucial to growing the value of our horticultural exports. It is also crucial to increasing the return to growers, to pack-house operators, and to exporters. This bill is a small step towards doing that, because it is providing a structure for minimum recognised quality standards and an ability to coordinate marketing through export marketing strategies and export licensing.

But if this Government was genuinely interested in helping the horticultural sector more seriously then it would have progressed this bill much more quickly—it has been 5 years in the making. The Horticulture Export Authority even had a diagram in one of its most recent annual reports that showed a snail, to highlight the very slow progress with the bill since consultation started in 2010. So it has been significantly delayed, when it could have been introduced and dealt with much more quickly.

One of the other ways in which the Government has failed to respond to the needs of the horticultural sector is that the Horticulture Export Authority has long called for country-of-origin labelling for fresh fruit and vegetable products, because it believes that this would benefit quality production. Yet the National Government has resolutely opposed this, and it could have been dealt with in this bill. We do not have mandatory country-of-origin labelling, unlike in Australia. In Australia any food product must identify the country of origin of whatever makes up more than 50 percent of the total production cost of the product. Because we do not have it, that means that fruit and vegetable products in our local shops do not have to have any identification on them as to where they come from. Certainly, some supermarkets have done this voluntarily, but it does mean that local producers are put at risk when we have scares, as we did in December 2015 when we had a Hepatitis A scare that was traced back to imported berries. Consumers in New Zealand could not choose local berries so that they would know that they were getting safe berries, because we did not have country-of-origin labelling, so, potentially, local producers lost out.

If we had the same rules as Australia—if there was proper legislation that was wider in scope than this one—that would make life simpler both for food manufacturers and for exports who were sending their products to both markets. Given that New Zealand is quite a small market, it would make more sense if the food producers were doing it on that wider scale so they did not have to change their labels just for us. So that is one area where this bill has failed.

Another area, generally, where the Government is failing the horticultural sector is the fact that it has not taken notice of the Horticulture Export Authority as it has highlighted, in its most recent annual report, that there is an increasing focus on sustainability in markets around the world. We like to think of ourselves as being clean and green. We like to have that as the basis for marketing a lot of our primary produce, yet we are failing to keep up with the international interest and commitment in this area.

In Ireland, for example, Origin Green has been established by the Irish Food Board. It was established in 2012 and it is a whole strategy around sustainability for food. It aims to shift Ireland’s agrifood business from one that is focused on low-value commodities, as we are here in New Zealand, to a much greater focus on what consumers want, to being a world leader in the market for premium products, and to getting a bigger value share from those markets. Origin Green in Ireland is a voluntary national-scale programme. It is coordinated by its food board and it involves around 55,000 Irish farms and 95 percent of food and drink producers—each of those has a 5-year sustainability plan. It has got measurable targets for producers to reduce their environmental impacts and also to provide social benefits to local communities, and to make their businesses more sustainable. Those sustainability plans are independently audited annually through the board’s quality assurance scheme.

In Ireland they are focusing on meeting consumer demands for high-quality safe food that is sustainably produced. Ireland is leaving us for dead, in terms of its commitment to sustainability. So that is one initiative that the Green Party would potentially look to review and introduce here, because we want a much stronger commitment to sustainability across the agricultural sector.

In terms of some of the comments made by previous speakers—Mr McKelvie commented on how we want to see more land used for horticulture in New Zealand. We would certainly agree with that, but it is not environmental constraints that are preventing that; what it is is the inflated prices for dairy land. Land prices are inflated because dairying is not considering its externalities in terms of water pollution and climate pollution. If agriculture is brought into the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and if dairying had to recognise that it has costs for the environment, and it was having to pay for those costs through being part of the ETS, then land prices would decline and it would be much more affordable to have much more diverse land uses, not just for horticulture but also for things like forestry. So, again, Green Party policy to bring agriculture into a regime where it accounts for its greenhouse emissions would help horticulture expand, because it would help bring our inflated land prices down.

This is a small and useful bill, but it only takes a very small step in terms of marketing strategies; it does not really tackle the barriers to the horticultural sector expanding. Those include bringing land prices down, having a long-term strategy for sustainability in the sector, and ensuring that we actually have all food production and fibre production sectors taking their greenhouse gas emissions into account. That is the sort of more innovative and more comprehensive initiative we would get with the Green Party being part of a progressive Government next year.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): There is not actually a great deal left to be said about this bill, although, having said that, there are a great many of us here saying a great deal about it. I do not intend to wax lyrical for very long, this late at night and this late in the year. But I think it is poignant, actually, that there are so many voices from all sides of the House in agreement on this bill. I am finding myself in agreement with everyone who has spoken so far, including, actually, a colleague from the Greens—not on every detail; I think there are some aspects that, although they may have merit in themselves, perhaps do not fit within the scope of this bill. Country-of-origin labelling is perhaps one of those. We certainly agree with that and support that as a goal. I do not know whether it could have been fit into this bill, particularly, but that is something else to be looked at.

When you go back to the very beginning, the explanatory note, it says: “The purpose of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987 … is to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural commodities.”—that is what it is about. If we were to go down the line that our Green colleague was suggesting—in other words, to bring all agriculture into the emissions trading scheme—that would be something, I think, that would work against the effective marketing of horticultural commodities. It would impose unnecessary costs that do not currently exist on another sector of the productive part of New Zealand’s economy, really for no real reason. But that also would be outside the scope of this bill.

I would like to acknowledge the work of our extremely able and affable chair, Mr McKelvie, who has shepherded the bill through its stages—

Hon David Cunliffe: No pun intended.

RICHARD PROSSER: —no, no pun intended, Mr Cunliffe—working closely with the Minister. On that note, in the Committee of the whole House, I did have a question for the Minister, on the Supplementary Order Paper that he had brought, Supplementary Order Paper 247. We took it on trust that the information that the Minister was bringing us on behalf of the industry was true and accurate, and that is certainly the case.

I had the opportunity to attend the horticulture industry’s end-of-year conference and the last speeches of that, prior to assembling on the steps of Parliament for a recreation of a 1916 photo. I managed to worm my way into that, and I will be recorded in history for ever as being “Who’s that character there?”—well, I guess my name will be written on the back somewhere. That was followed by a cocktail function, which I did not attend, but I did notice one or two members walking in the direction of it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go back to the bill.

Hon Simon Bridges: This sounds like evidence in a jury trial.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sounds like Lonely Planet to me.

RICHARD PROSSER: Judge only—judge only. But if we look at the overall aims of the bill, I think it is fairly clear that it does achieve them all: “to—enable product groups to develop more flexible and targeted export marketing strategies;”—yes; “clarify the requirements for product groups to enter into and to exit from the export framework established by the Act;”—yes, it does that; “clarify the powers of product groups to collect fees and levies to fund their export marketing strategies;”—it does that; “improve the effectiveness of the enforcement provisions …”—it does that; and “formalise the information-sharing activities …”—it does that too. So it ticks the boxes for what it set out to achieve, and it has done it in a way that has gained the support of all parties across the House.

This is actually about Parliament doing what Parliament should do. Parliament is listening to the industry, listening to the people. The people and the industry have come to Parliament and said: “We want your help and assistance in putting together a piece of legislation that enables us to work better, for our industry to operate better, for us to make more money and more wealth for New Zealand Inc.” It creates employment; everyone is happy. As a Parliament, we have come together. As a committee we have come together—we have achieved that. Perhaps this could, I think, in the closing stages of this year, shine as a beacon for the new Prime Minister, whoever that person turns out to be—

Hon David Cunliffe: Andrew Little.

RICHARD PROSSER: —no, being realistic, Mr Cunliffe—to go forward into the New Year in a new spirit of cooperation, embracing the positive suggestions from members all across the House, and coming to a consensus conclusion in passing good legislation that everybody likes and everybody supports. So I am not going to hold up the progress of this bill or the House any further. New Zealand First is pleased and happy to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I always find myself speaking after the honourable member Mr Prosser, and I do agree with two things that he said in his speech. The first was that the bill ticks all the boxes for what it set out to achieve. That is right, because it was shepherded through under the able and pragmatic leadership of our chairperson, Mr Ian McKelvie, and I would like to acknowledge Ian and the other members of the committee.

The second thing that Mr Prosser said that I agree with is that the last thing we would want to see would be agriculture being introduced into the emissions trading scheme, which leads me on to a point that I agree with from the Green Party member Eugenie Sage, the previous member who spoke, when she said that one thing that would achieve would be decreased land prices. That is absolutely right. I think you would see land prices go through the floor if that were to be introduced.

This is a bill that we have had the privilege of working on in the Primary Production Committee, and one of the things that is really interesting about it is that it is a cornerstone piece of legislation that can actually see the pathway forward for a number of industries on a global stage. We have got such an opportunity to be able to put forward our premium brand as an exporting nation. One of things that this bill actually does is it puts a lot of safeguards around that and solidifies a lot of the processes that are in place to enable more of these industries to do that.

We know the value of this industry to our country. When the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act was introduced there was about $50 million worth of produce that was exported through that. Last year, we know that under the facilitation of this Act—the legislation governing this—there was about $300 million that was shepherded through. So we know the importance of this to our economy, and that is why it is a great privilege to speak in support of it. Thank you very much.

BARRY COATES (Green): I rise to talk in support of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill in its third and final reading. The Green Party welcomes this bill. It is in line with Green Party policy on diversifying our agriculture, supporting high-value primary production, leveraging our “clean, green” reputation, and supporting an initiative that is led by horticulturalists in the horticulture sector. We welcome the range of products that will be supported by this bill: avocados, blackcurrants, boysenberries, buttercup squash, chestnuts, nashi pears, tamarillos, etc. We congratulate the Horticulture Export Authority on the excellent work it has been doing, which has increased revenues from $50 million in 1998 to $300 million last year. This bill, we think, is an important new framework that helps growers, pack-house operators, and exporters increase market share and develop new markets.

However, we think it is about time this bill was introduced. We note that five annual reports in a row by the Horticulture Export Authority had called for this bill. As my colleague Eugenie Sage said, there is an amusing diagram on the Horticulture Export Authority’s website called Sid the Snail’s Trail, which is all about the passage of this bill. So why did it take so long? Well, one of the things, we think, is that perhaps the Government may be obsessed with supporting the commodity sector, rather than the high-value horticultural sector. The lack of focus on high-value production from the horticultural sector, we believe, may be partly responsible for the Government’s missing its target for export revenues to achieve 40 percent of gross domestic product. In fact, since the Government came in in 2008, the proportion of exports as a percentage of GDP has gone down rather than up towards that target.

So, although supporting this bill, we think that it needs other measures that would constitute a more coherent strategy. So what might that strategy look like? It might look like this: a proper partnership between Governments and producers, a marketing board that is responsive and supportive, and support for food provenance—where food is grown and under what conditions; the quality of food, and the sustainability of food is something that consumers around the world care deeply about. As my colleague Eugenie Sage said, we have country-of-origin labelling in Australia, but not in New Zealand. It would make all the sense in the world for us to join Australia in country-of-origin labelling.

We have geographical indications now for wine, and I think that is also a good bill that has gone through. However, why not geographical indications for food? Why do we not have Bluff oysters? Why do we not have Central Otago beef? Why do we not have geographical indications for products across the country such as Waiheke olives and Pukekohe potatoes and Ōhākune carrots—and all sorts of food that is grown to high-quality standards in this country? Why do we not celebrate the provenance of our products? That would increase the value, which would give that distinctive marketing edge.

We have also heard from my colleague around rational land use, which would make sectors like dairy pay their way and would enable more land to be leased for high-value uses like horticulture. We need proper support for sustainability and cleaning up our rivers, we need investment in New Zealand’s clean, green reputation, which has been allowed to degrade through neglect and through poor environmental performance, and we need support for high-value marketing.

So the Green Party looks forward to this bill being passed. We support it. We think it is a big step forward, but we also look forward to an even bigger step forward of getting into Government and supporting the excellent work done by the horticultural sector and others to increase the value of our agricultural products. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Clare Curran—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Taking a call on the third reading of this bill, I support the member Eugenie Sage in her description of it as a small but useful bill. I did not sit on the select committee for this particular piece of legislation and my personal contribution to horticulture is trying to keep my vegetable garden producing when I am not there. However, anything that involves supporting high-value export industries is something to be supported and Labour certainly supports this bill. I also support what the previous speaker, Barry Coates, said around the geographical indicators. The glaringly obvious—really—trajectory for an industry such as horticulture and for anything that we are particularly proud of in this country that we export and produce is to have it linked to a geographical part of the country. The technology will, ultimately, lead us in that direction but it will likely be a progressive Labour-led Government that will actually enable it.

I note that my colleague Damien O’Connor in his speeches in previous readings talked about this being coordination and collaboration across primary sectors. Certainly, this Horticulture Export Authority has been around for 29 years, I think, exporting to 100 countries, with $300 million exports. It is clearly going on a trajectory upwards. That is all great and something to be supported. But as my colleague Damien O’Connor asked—and the Minister never really adequately answered this question in the Committee stage of this legislation—why not meat? Why are we not going down this route of formal collaboration with an authority that has a definite plan around it? Why are we not doing this in our meat industry? Why are we allowing our meat industry to continue to be so disunified?

I also note that the amendment to have the levies in the primary legislation—also something that the Minister touched on only very lightly—had to be put at the Committee stage. What actually occurred with that stuff-up in this bill and why could he not address that during the Committee stage of the bill? I do not think he adequately addressed it during the third reading. I do think these things are important for transparency and I just want to put that on the record as well.

Ultimately, this is a bill that is a blindingly obvious bill that we would support. It talks about various product groups. There are various product groups that are forming across the way at the moment in the National Party. They are forming and taking shape—

Richard Prosser: Do you think we should export them?

CLARE CURRAN: We could export them but they are taking shape before our very eyes. When I was looking at the product groups that were listed under the Horticulture Export Authority, I wondered what the synergies were. I was looking for swedes and potatoes, actually, which are not listed there and which I thought would characterise Bill English. But I thought it would be more likely to describe him as that old chestnut. Looking at Jonathan Coleman, he is more like the nashi pear. It is on restaurant menus, it is flashy, but it is, ultimately, also a bit watery and tasteless. With Judith Collins, you could talk about the tamarillo, because you either love it or you hate it, and it is quite tart—

Hon David Cunliffe: Not tart enough.

CLARE CURRAN: Well, it is quite tart. But there has to be a fourth. There is a fourth option, which I think is pitched as the truffle, which, ultimately, could turn out to be the lemon.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I am not quite sure whether the last speaker, Clare Curran, really understood the concept of what we are talking about with the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. This is about collaboration and cooperation between exporting industries in the horticulture area. I also have to take to task the previous speaker before her, Barry Coates, because he was telling a great story about food provenance, and he talked about partnering with the Government to sell its story. Well, actually, food producers are very good at telling their own stories. I think New Zealand needs to start getting prouder at telling the story and we need to be very careful about the stories that we tell.

We talk about food provenance and we talk about pride in our food and we talk about all of those things, and then we have the likes of the Green Party members who spend their time actually knocking down some of our producers who are making every effort to get in line with their environmental concerns. So we cannot tell one story on one hand to the world and say, yes, we have got these fabulous food producers, and on the other hand actually go around pulling it to bits. So we have got a bit of a conundrum there on the Opposition side of the fence.

To me this is a really good story. It is about nine horticulture-based export industries operating together. It is about the “New Zealand Inc.” brand, and I think it is really important that we are able to do that out in the market. We are very proud of our horticultural industry. It is a top-performing primary industry, and the exports are now worth over $4 billion. They have grown 17 percent over the last 3 years and I think that is very commendable. I think that working together can only corroborate that effort and provide us a lot more growth in the future, so it is a pleasure to support this bill. Thank you.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I am not too sure what that member, Barbara Kuriger, was talking about, but let me add a little bit of clarity to the debate here.

Hon David Cunliffe: Nor was she.

STUART NASH: I know, ha, ha! Well, look, the purpose of this bill is actually to promote effective export marketing of horticultural commodities. That is something that we all want, but we must understand in the 21st century that it is countries, not just companies, that are seeking to develop a global competitive advantage in this day and age. Gone are the days when we can go overseas and hand out a whole lot of rugby jerseys and expect to do business.

As I mentioned in a speech earlier on this evening, one of the things that I think that Government has done incredibly poorly is manage our global brand. What is a global brand worth? Well, in 2005 the then Ministry of Economic Development valued New Zealand’s global brand—the clean, green “100% Pure” brand—at $20 billion a year. At the same time, Deloitte did a survey and found that 80 percent of New Zealand companies that sought to export leveraged off this clean, green brand. Yet I think it was Amy Adams who talked about rivers; that it was acceptable if they were a good enough quality to go wading in—to go wading in.

One thing that I think that I agree with Barbara Kuriger on—I think what she was trying to say is that the story we tell overseas about our brand, the clean, green “100% Pure” brand, if we do not actually live that brand and if we do not walk the walk, then what happens is it becomes a fallacy. What happens, ultimately, is we become just another small economy pushing commodities into an increasingly competitive global market. We need a global competitive advantage that stands for something. When someone buys a kiwifruit or an apple or a banana or a nashi in a supermarket and it has “New Zealand” on it, they need to know that that stands for freshness, for great systems, for organic—or whatever, but it has got to stand for something more than the same product from Australia or South America or somewhere else. If we do not manage this brand well, we are in huge trouble. What I would really like to see is the environmental policy from that Government over the next 8 months—because that is all it has got—actually start to reflect the value of this brand in a way that is walking the walk, because if it becomes a myth, we are in trouble.

When we talk about horticultural exports, what are we actually talking about? Is this a big industry or is this a small industry? Well, it did increase by 9.5 percent in 2016—horticultural exports—to a record $4.3 billion. Kiwifruit exports in 2015 increased by $251 million to $1.2 billion, and they are on target to meet their 2025 target of $3 billion. Apples—they are up by $25 million to $562 million, and they are on track to meet their target of a billion dollars of exports by 2020.

Let us put this into perspective and see how valuable this industry has become to this country. In terms of the total horticultural exports, in 1985 they were worth $481 million, or 4.4 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports. By 2005 that had grown to $2.3 billion, or 7.5 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports. Move forward to 2015 and we are now talking about nearly $4.5 billion, or 8.8 percent of New Zealand’s exports, and it is only going to get better. I know that in Hawke’s Bay, which has the second-largest area under horticulture—behind Marlborough, and significantly more than most regions—there are literally millions of dollars being put into planting more orchards. This is a significant industry, and we need to get this right.

The products with export values of greater than $10 million are kiwifruit, wine, apples, cherries, and avocadoes—the things we do not necessarily think about. Asia, for example—we sent $1.43 billion of horticultural exports to Asia in 2015, $826 million to Australia, and $642 million to North America. Continental Europe—$632 million into the UK, over $500 million of exports.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now relate it to the bill.

STUART NASH: Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are halfway through; you have not done that yet.

STUART NASH: Yes, well, we are talking about the horticultural exports here, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am making is that if we are to get this right, if we are to really grow the premium brand—the Brand New Zealand—then exporting our horticultural products is just so important. This bill is a small step. It is not a panacea. We should be doing more; there is no doubt about that. I completely agree with the Greens in terms of country-of-origin labelling. Why would we not do it? We have absolutely nothing to lose by doing this. We have nothing to lose by doing this.

Let us get “Brand New Zealand” out there. When I go to the supermarket, I want to know where I am buying my food from. I want to know whether I am buying Kiwi, or buying wherever. Why should we not do this? Why should we not know this? But, also, why should we not expect our export markets to do exactly the same? If we get this right, the value of horticultural exports will go through the roof. Zespri for me is a classic case of how to de-commoditise something that was a commodity. It has done a brilliant job of really creating a differential in the market place around quality, around different products, actually. Fonterra—they could be doing better, but brand Fonterra means something. This is what we need to do in the horticultural sector, as well.

Time and time again in primary industries, whether it be meat or wool or wood, we go overseas and we compete against each other. How does that help us in the 21st century? Quite simply, it does not, at all. So I am in favour of this bill, but actually I would like to see a whole lot more done to really drive value to get that “Brand New Zealand” up there—not only “Brand New Zealand” in the global markets but to have “Brand New Zealand” mean something in New Zealand, because, probably like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I grew up swimming in clean rivers and fresh lakes. Our kids are not doing that at the moment. We need to get back to that, because that is what—[Interruption] I am sorry if I am keeping you up, Mr McKelvie. That is what “Brand New Zealand” means to Kiwis, but it also must be what “Brand New Zealand” means to our global markets. If we cannot get that premium, we are in trouble. Conversely, if we can get that premium around what New Zealand is worth, then these exports will go through the roof.

So I do support this bill, but I think there is a lot more we could be doing. Thank you very much.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a really great privilege and a pleasure to be the last speaker on the third reading of this bill. The select committee chair tells me that it is worth billions of dollars to the New Zealand horticultural sector and, as the MP for Coromandel, which includes the horticultural heartland hub of Katikati in the Western Bay of Plenty, I know that the horticultural sector orchardists in my part of the world will be greatly welcoming this bill.

I did not have an opportunity to sit on the select committee, but I understand from listening to other speakers that this is a bill whose time has come. It is a good bill for “New Zealand Inc.” and the horticultural sector. I have enormous pleasure in commending it to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Charities Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I move, That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Charities Amendment Bill makes three small but important technical amendments to the Charities Act 2005. It was divided from the current Statutes Amendment Bill to give the public a further opportunity to make submissions.

I would like to commend and thank members of the Government Administration Committee for their work on the bill. It ended up not being as simple as we started out thinking it would be. The committee received 32 written submissions and heard six oral submissions. The committee recommended one amendment not proceed and the insertion of one additional amendment. Although the bill makes only a small number of changes to the Charities Act, they are important for reinforcing the public’s trust and confidence in the system, and I would like to highlight those changes to the bill.

Briefly, the introduction of a 20-working-day time frame to respond to a notice to provide further information as a part of a registration application process that is, and will remain, an iterative process will provide greater certainty for all concerned. It will reduce the time and cost to process registration applications and remove the reputational risk to an entity that can arise if its application is formally declined. It is better, as this bill provides, for the application to be deemed withdrawn if the entity does not respond within that request time frame.

Likewise, it makes sense to include tax evasion and similar offences under section 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 in the list of offences that disqualify someone from being an officer of a registered charity. I am sure every member of this House would agree that financial prudence is an important aspect in promoting the public’s trust and confidence in charities.

The remaining amendment, which was inserted with the unanimous support of the Government Administration Committee, corrects a two-word drafting error that arose in 2012. This amendment does not have any impact on a charity’s ability to seek justice, merely providing clarity for the High Court when making interim orders.

As I have outlined, this bill makes three small but important technical changes that will improve the coherence of the Charities Act 2005. It will provide greater clarity around the registration application process and contribute to public trust and confidence in charities by strengthening protections against the risk of financial mismanagement. I would like to again thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill and, thus far, the unanimous support of this House. I commend the bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a call on the third reading of this bill. I just want to pick up where Minister Goodhew left off in terms of her raising the issue of the trust and confidence of the community sector in the charities registration process. What I want to say about that is, actually, it is my understanding and my belief that it was the eagle eyes of certain community organisations that saw within the Statutes Amendment Bill a possibility that rights of charitable organisations could be somewhat diminished should the Statutes Amendment Bill go through as it was originally drafted. So they actually presented to the Government Administration Committee and were very vocal about this particular section. Following briefings with the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Internal Affairs, that section was actually carved out and became the Charities Amendment Bill.

The organisations that submitted to this particular piece of legislation were doing so because they wanted to get a sense of confidence that their rights to appeal decisions made by the Charities Registration Board would still continue. Despite the various pieces of work done by officials and evidence presented by officials, that particular sector was not actually feeling a sense of confidence that that would occur. Despite the assurances of the Minister that the bill was to ensure that their rights of appeal would remain in place, the sector was not entirely comfortable with it. That led us to, on the committee itself, wanting to ensure that one particular section was withdrawn, which we were able to do.

What I want to do is also just reiterate something that the Minister said at the Committee stage, because I challenged an issue that had been raised with me. I challenged the Minister on her ability to actually have a robust relationship with the sector. The Minister did say in respect of the comment on the last 8 years that “I have been the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector now for 5 of them, and I have seen a distinct change in terms of confidence and, also, the working relationship between the Government and this sector. I have to say that they know my number and I know theirs, and we have a full and frank exchange of ideas and views.”

I thought that that was a very bold statement, so I decided to actually ask members of the community and voluntary sector whether they agreed with that statement, and I got a range of responses back from the sector. Here is one such response: “Absolutely not. There is no increase in confidence—in fact, the opposite is true. The Minister should stop listening to the sycophants, mainly the preferred providers run by large corporates and much loved by this Government, and start looking at the lived reality of too many of its citizens.”

Another response that I think is very telling: “Even if we have a full and frank exchange of ideas and views, it is a question of whether our perspective is given any credence. Often a Minister is so wedded to the party line that everything is wonderful and they just don’t take us seriously. If we persist in pushing a view that there are problems with any particular Government policy, then we can face retaliation through media and through subsequent funding decisions.” This was a concern that has been raised with us by many community organisations over the last 5 or 6 years.

This is the last comment I want to make, and I think it is very telling as to the lack of confidence that the sector has in the Minister: “The other aspect is that the community organisations generally take into account in their dealings with Ministers as well as officials that no matter how inept or lacking in insight they are, we still have to work with them, so there is no gain in antagonising them needlessly. We put up with their wilful ignorant positions because we have no choice.” That does not sound like a resounding vote of confidence in the Minister and her robust—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day, and the House is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2016

(continued on Wednesday, 7 December 2016)

Bills

Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Today we are here to consider, debate, and address matters of great importance. Today is a great day for our nation and for Rangitāne o Manawatu. Very few things can be more defining than a third reading of settlement legislation, as we found last week when we debated the third readings of three settlement bills.

I can see a number of visitors in the gallery who have led the journey to settlement for Rangitāne o Manawatu. This iwi have had to overcome very many obstacles to get to this point, and I am so very, very pleased to see you here today. After so many years of negotiations with the Crown, I am pleased that the people of Rangitāne o Manawatu do not have to wait any longer to see the third reading of their bill. So I extend a warm welcome to members of Rangitāne o Manawatu who have travelled from the Manawatū area and from further afield to be here in Parliament today to listen to this, the third reading of their legislation.

I acknowledge—as I always do, and always should—those negotiators who passed away during the course of the negotiations, namely, Rangihararu Fitzgerald, Tānenuiārangi Te Aweawe, Kura Te Rangi-Baker, Ruth Harris, and Kararaina Tait.

To those of you who have worked so hard to make today possible, I offer my most sincere thanks. This settlement represents the culmination of several generations of work, beginning with the late, great Ruth Harris—who lodged the Wai 182 claim with the tribunal in 1990, and whose hard work and vision has been carried on by her daughter Danielle Harris—by Maurice Takarangi, and by a number of other fine people. As I said during the second reading, the commitment, dedication, and high standards of the negotiators are truly outstanding.

This day has been a long time coming for Rangitāne o Manawatu. As I said, they have faced many challenges since the 1990s, including a long, long pause in negotiations. I want to acknowledge other members of Rangitāne who contributed to the claims process and who have passed on, including Inia Te Rangi, Winnie Smith, Lorene Fitzgerald, and Yvonne Marshall.

Since signing the terms of negotiation in 1998—1998—Rangitāne o Manawatu have dealt with five Ministers for Treaty settlements and countless Crown officials. The Crown recognises the long and heavy burden Rangitāne o Manawatu have carried in pursuing justice over so many years, and I congratulate you on reaching this milestone. Lesser people would have said “It’s all too hard. I am giving up. I’ll go back to something else.”, but you have hung in there and you have achieved your settlement.

There are many people who have contributed to this legislation, both within the iwi and Crown agencies. Can I acknowledge the chief Crown negotiators whom I have used: Ross Philipson and, more recently, Glenn Webber. Their efforts and persistence have been very helpful to me as I have come to settle this claim.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge all the tūpuna of Rangitāne o Manawatu, who began the search for justice once land acquisitions began in the 1850s, as it is many of their descendants who have driven the claims process in the modern era. There are so many people to acknowledge, but it is appropriate in the third reading debate to acknowledge those who have contributed. Their names deserve to be written into the permanent record of Parliament.

The loss that Rangitāne o Manawatu suffered can never be fully compensated by the Crown, and much of what was lost simply cannot be returned. I say that every third reading. It never makes me pleased to say it, but say it I must because it is a reality. However, the people of Rangitāne o Manawatu have graciously accepted the redress contained in their settlement, and in doing so, I acknowledge their generosity.

Rangitāne o Manawatu is an iwi that lost most of its land through extensive Crown purchases in the mid-19th century, with very limited—some would say pitiful—reserves set aside. By the end of the 1880s, Rangitāne o Manawatu held approximately 20,000 acres of land, including reserves from Crown purchases that they had been awarded by the Native Land Court and land that they had repurchased in the Te Ahuaturanga block. From the 19th century, much of the remaining iwi land was partitioned by the Native Land Court and subsequently purchased by private interests. By 1930 Rangitāne o Manawatu land holdings had been reduced to a meagre 2,903 acres. What remained of the land was then eroded by further sales and, as an iwi, Rangitāne o Manawatu became virtually landless. This has had, obviously, a severe impact on the health of the people of Rangitāne o Manawatu.

Put simply, the Crown failed to ensure that the iwi were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs. Over many generations, the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty have simply undermined the social and traditional structures of Rangitāne and compromised the autonomy and ability of the iwi to exercise their customary rights and responsibilities.

This is such a familiar account of the past relationship between the Crown and its Treaty partner. We have heard it so many times of late. As I said, we had three bills last week—situations where the Crown repeatedly failed to fulfil the undertakings it made under the Treaty. Every time a settlement bill comes through Parliament, the same stories of land loss, of dispossession, and of economic and cultural alienation are heard. Every time it cuts deep, to the core of our nation. Māori across this country have legitimate Treaty grievances, and they need to be addressed. Today the time has come for the Crown to acknowledge the errors of the past and make amends for its actions or omissions.

One critical aspect of this settlement is the apology. I cannot stress enough the importance of the Crown recognising the struggles of the ancestors of Rangitāne o Manawatu in pursuit of redress and justice, and the relevance of a Crown apology to Rangitāne o Manawatu, to their ancestors, and to their descendants. The apology states that “by this settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for its wrongs and begin the process of healing.” Not only is the Crown apology an acknowledgment of long-held grievances but, hopefully, it heralds the re-establishment of a partnership based on that mutual trust, cooperation, and respect for the Treaty, and it is the right thing to do.

I hope that the redress package in this settlement will go a long way to reconnect Rangitāne o Manawatu with its environment and to acknowledge the mana and the rangatiratanga of Rangitāne o Manawatu. The settlement will also contribute to restoring the honour of the Crown and will mark the dawn of a new era in the relationship between Treaty partners. It has been such a long journey for Rangitāne, and I am so delighted that we have finally reached this stage.

I want to conclude by again paying tribute to Danielle Harris and simply say what a classy negotiator she has been. She has worked so very hard for the iwi. It has not been easy. We think this place is adversarial, but sometimes the attacks—the personalised attacks—on negotiators can really cut to the core. But she is one tough cookie, and she accepted those attacks and soldiered on, so, personally, I acknowledge you, Danielle. Thank you for your wonderful contribution to the iwi and to Manawatū, and I wish you all the very best for the future. I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tika ana kia huri atu anō ki a rātau mā te wāhi ngaro, nō reira, ka tukuna atu anō te reo whakamoemiti ki a rātau mā, tēnei mātau e tono atu ki a koutou kia manaakitia mātau i roto i tēnei āhuatanga, te kōrero atu i roto i te Whare nei. Nō reira mā Te Māngai hei tautoko mai āianei ake nei, āe!

Oti noa kei te mihi atu anō ki te āhuatanga e pā ana ki ō tātau tini mate. Nō reira mai i Te Rakiura ki te tonga, whiti atu ki Te Wharekauri ki te rāwhiti, toro atu ki Manawatū, ki te uru, piki atu ki Te Reinga ki Te Tai Tokerau, ā, ki ngā kokonga e whā o Te Motu o Aotearoa, ngā whānau i raro i te kapua pōuri kei te hīkoi i roto i te ātārangi o ngā whārua o te mate, mauria mai ō koutou pare kawakawa kia tangihia i te wā iti nei. Tēnei te tangi apakura e aku parepare, e aku whakaruruhau: “E te mūrau o te tini, e te wenerau o te mano kua maunu ki te waka o aituā, kua huri, kua wehe ki ngā rangi.” Nō reira, koutou mā e ngā mate maha o te wā, hoki wairua atu ki a rātau mā, nō reira e oki, e moe, e moe. Ā kāti mō tēnā!

He tino hōnore tēnei ki te tū ake i tēnei rā, tuatahi, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a rātau mā ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Rangitāne o Manawatū kua tae mai ki te pānuitanga whakamutunga o tēnei tō rātau pire. Nō reira, kei te mihi ake ki a koutou ngā whānau me ngā hapū kua tae mai i tēnei rā, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E kī ana te korero: “Tini whetū ki te rangi, Rangitāne ki te whenua.” Nō reira, tihei mauri ora!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is apt that I turn once again to them of the place unseen, and so we thank them collectively. Therefore, we ask you to look after us in this situation as we make a contribution in this House. And so may the Mouthpiece support us now and forever, yes!

Furthermore, we pay a tribute once again in regard to the circumstances of our many deaths. So from Stewart Island to the south and across to the East Coast, extending to Manawatū in the west, and up to the North Cape to Northland, to the four corners of the country of New Zealand, and to the families under the cloud of darkness walking in the shadow of the valleys of death, bring forth your adornments of death to be mourned for this brief moment of time. This indeed is a dirge of lament to you, my protective wall and mentors: “We indeed are the dread of the many and the envy of the multitude, who have migrated to the vessel of calamity that has turned and departed to the heavens.” And so, to you and others, to the many deaths of the moment, return spiritually to them, rest, sleep, and slumber. And so, enough of that!

This is a real honour to stand up today, firstly and quite aptly so, to extend a welcome to them, to the families, and to the hapū of Rangitāne o Manawatu who have arrived here for the final reading of this their bill. Therefore, I extend a welcome to you collectively, the families and hapū who have arrived here today, so acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively. As the aphorism states: “Like the many stars in the sky, so are there many of Rangitāne upon the land.” Behold the breath of life!]

It is a great privilege and honour to stand here today to speak to the third reading of the Rangitāne o Manuwatu Claims Settlement Bill. At long last we have arrived at this day, and I endorse the words of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in that respect. Today, for me, is a big celebration. It is a celebration of an iwi who have had the tenacity to navigate the treacherous pathway of Treaty settlement and to actually come out the other end of it with their integrity intact.

I mihi to all of those who have been involved in bringing this settlement to a conclusion. Today is not the end, really; it is just the beginning. It is a beginning of a new legacy, and I am reminded of the words I said at the second reading. Today is a great occasion to remember that this is the completion of a legacy. I think I will remember that it is the day that we know that the completion of the tohu in Tūturu Pūmau can now take place. That signifies a significant conclusion for this legacy. But I say also that this is the beginning of a new legacy, and it is a time for us to look to the future.

I think that this settlement, like all settlements, will give Rangitāne o Manuwatu the opportunity to take this settlement asset and provide a better future for the next and coming generations. So I congratulate the settlement trust on the work that it has done so far, and I acknowledge that it will not be easy. There will be challenges still to come. But as I have already said, Rangitāne o Manuwatu have navigated the Treaty settlement process with honour and dignity, and I do not see that there will be any challenges that will not be met. So I congratulate the settlement trust.

I congratulate all of the hapū as well, because it is actually the hapū who are the major beneficiaries of the settlement, and so they should be. I look to all of the redress items—particularly, for me, the cultural redress items, and my mind also goes to Pukepuke Lagoon, the vesting of land at the lagoon, the statutory acknowledgment, and the deed of recognition. I think that those three significant items all together mean that Rangitāne will have a significant part to play in the conservation and the future of Pukepuke. I look forward, as a member, an uri, of Ngāti Tauira to participating in everything that that piece of land, that lagoon, has for the future of all of our family.

I also look forward to seeing the economic development. I think that is something I probably do not speak about often enough, but this settlement provides an enormous opportunity for Rangitāne o Manuwatu to take its rightful place within the Manuwatū. Alongside the relationship mechanisms that are in the settlement, Rangitāne o Manuwatu will be able to be at the forefront of the decision making within their own rohe. I have to say that Rangitāne o Manuwatu, despite not having this settlement up to this day, are already significant players and have a significant voice within the Manuwatū. I am not going to prolong this kōrero. I am just excited and happy for Rangitāne o Manuwatu.

Nō reira, i taku kōrero whakamutunga atu ki a koutou kua tae mai ki Te Whare nei, e kī ana ahau i roto i tēnei kōrero nei, kua tae mai te wā ki te whakaoti, ki te whakahoki mai i te tohu ki roto i Te Whare kia tūturu pūmau ai. Nō reira, i runga i tērā ka tukuna atu tēnei korōria, hareruia ki a Īhowa o ngā mano. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Therefore, in this, my closing address to you who have arrived here at this House, I said in this contribution that the moment has come to hand to bring the symbolic landmark back within the House to enshrine it permanently. And so, on that point, I offer this glory and euphoria to Jehovah of the thousands. Mr Assistant Speaker, I thank you, but, at the same time, all of us.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā rā koutou ngā puāwaitaka o tō tātau matua tipuna. Tēnei te mihi o ngā uri o Whātonga, Kurahaupō waka, Rangitāne-ki-Manawatū; nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai, ki Te Whare Pāremata, e mihi nei, e tangi nei i a koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira e tūmanako ake nei, e hāpai ake nei, ka mihi, ka mihi! Rātau ki a rātau, tātau ki a tātau, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, the blossoms of our ancestral forefather. I acknowledge you, the relatives of Whātonga, of the Kurahaupō canoe, and of Rangitāne at Manawatū; welcome, come forth, and pay homage to Parliament here, which acknowledges and grieves for you treasured ones, with your aspirations and support, I commend and congratulate you collectively! Leave the dead there amongst themselves, and we, the living, amongst ourselves, and so I acknowledge and congratulate you collectively, and commend all of you.]

Thank you for the opportunity to once again be able to speak on the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to acknowledge my committee on this journey in the passage of this very, very important bill. This journey began from the first part when it was introduced to the House, to the first reading, to the hearing of submissions down to the second reading, to the Committee of the whole House, and now to the final part of the journey of this bill here today, the third reading, and, once that is concluded, then to the Royal assent. Then, under an Act of Parliament, the real journey actually begins for your people.

Before I get into the bill, I also want to acknowledge the incredible work of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—ki a koe e Te Minita Finlayson. The other thing is that I want to pay tribute to the Rt Hon John Key, because it has been not only the Hon Christopher Finlayson who has personally progressed the many, many Treaty settlements during the last 8 years. Minister Finlayson deserves credit for the inclusive way that he has worked to achieve these settlements, and you all know how the Minister has actually worked through this. I am sure the Minister would join me in acknowledging that this would not have been possible without the support of Prime Minister John Key. He has been a National Party leader and a Prime Minister who has been a great supporter of the aspirations of Māori to improve the outcomes of our people.

This also would not have been possible without a supportive Minister of Finance, the person who holds the purse strings. Without the support of the Hon Bill English this would actually be quite difficult, particularly when we look at the commercial redress. As the Minister of Finance, he ensured that the funding for Treaty settlements was available, and his Better Public Services programme also has ensured that Māori are better served by our public services. It is thanks to Bill English in no small part that we are seeing better outcomes for Māori in education, health, and in the job market itself. That will definitely continue.

Let us come back now to the third reading, and particularly to where Rangitāne ki Manawatū is actually concerned—and it is all about that. It is actually all about that, but this is the beginning of that next journey that I was talking about. We know because the first speaker, the honourable Minister—he has gone through a lot of the historical aspects of this Treaty settlement. What I want to just concentrate on, particularly during that journey through the select committee, is actually around the submissions process. One submission that really did catch my attention was from the Ngāti Hineaute hapū of Ngāti Rangitāne. Their written submission was very clear and succinct in the fact that they laid out three principles that are the real essence, or the hallmark, of this Treaty settlement.

The first one highlighted the importance and the acknowledgment of the apology. Like my own iwi, Kai Tahu, it was not actually about the money or anything like that. One of the things that our people really thought was the most important was actually the fact of the apology. It is about the apology, which the Minister actually mentioned this morning. Having spoken to many members of iwi around Treaty settlements, they have reiterated the fact of the apology. That was the first part of that submission. The apology, as we know, does not undo the wrongs of the past, but what it highlights is the fact that we, as a Government and as a nation, actually understand the pain that was caused in the past. It is a commitment, too, around honouring the Treaty.

The second part of the submission highlighted the fact that the redress provided to the iwi does not and cannot actively reflect the value of the loss sustained by Rangitāne. That was something that was also acknowledged in that submission, and it is acknowledged here today.

Thirdly are the benefits of the settlement, particularly the benefits that are made possible by the commercial redress. What will really make a difference, as we have actually known in Kai Tahu, is the commercial redress that forms part of the continual development of Rangitāne o Manawatu.

The settlement provides the apology that Rangitāne is owed. It provides cultural and commercial redress, including a financial redress of $13.5 million. It has been said that the amount does not reflect what was taken—absolutely, but it goes a long way to assist the future of Rangitāne o Manawatu. On that note, I wish the leaders, the rakatira, of Rangitāne o Manawatu every success in the next part of their huge journey towards the success of their people. I wish them all the vision and wisdom and financial nous that they will need to achieve those goals for the future. On that note, I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a privilege and honour to be able to speak in this third reading of the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill. As others have said before me, this is one step on an incredibly long journey for Rangitāne o Manawatu, a long journey that started—well, this phase started back in 1998; of course, really, it started all the way back in the 19th century. Others have spoken of the dignity and tenacity that the leaders of Rangitāne have shown.

I particularly want to acknowledge Danielle Harris and her team, and everyone who has gone before, in bringing this claim before the tribunal and, ultimately, allowing us to share in this journey for this brief period when we have been dealing with the legislation, which is such a vital component of the redress and the ability to move forward from the wrongs that have been committed in the past.

I want to acknowledge that Rangitāne o Manawatu has suffered just about every breach of the Treaty that was possible: unreasonable deals that you were forced to accept, unreasonable acquisitions of land, and pitiful attempts at redress that were never going to be enough to acknowledge the loss that was suffered. I want to acknowledge today that this redress, this apology, and this compensation of course does not in any way totally compensate the loss that Rangitāne has suffered. No Treaty settlement does.

I want to acknowledge all iwi for being prepared to settle these claims with a settlement that is acceptable to the Crown—that can be met by the Crown—but that, obviously, in no way meets in financial terms the loss that any iwi has suffered. I think that is important for the people of New Zealand to know, because, although we have much more consensus today around the Treaty settlement process—we have a lot more consensus in this House, and it certainly helps us to make progress when it is not a political football in this House; we no longer have talk of fiscal envelopes or restrictions on how we will achieve settlement of Treaty claims. But there is still the occasional person out there who thinks that somehow everybody should just move on and pretend that nothing ever happened. I think that those people need to understand that, actually, the people who are giving up the most in this are the iwi, who are prepared to settle for what are tiny proportions of what they had lost in financial terms. So thank you for doing that.

I am looking forward to the next phase. We have been able to join you on this little bit of it, and at this point we hand it back to you now to take what you receive out of this settlement, to take the opportunities that are created by this settlement, and to build a future for your youngsters and for your iwi. I hope to be able to participate even more—even more—than you currently do in the Palmerston North community and in the wider Manawatū community. I am looking forward to the relationships—the special relationships—that are formed in this legislation, but also the way in which you will be able to manage your own assets and forge your own path into the future, and how important that is going to be to our wider community.

I do not think people actually appreciate just how important that is going to be to our region and to our community, but it is exciting, and we are looking forward to seeing what you can achieve and how you can further your involvement and your ability to drive our community and our economy forward. That is exciting and incredibly important for us, not just for you and for your own people but for the whole community in Palmerston North and Manawatū.

Thank you for letting us be part of your story. I am so looking forward to the future. Thank you for your tenacity, for your dignity, and for sticking with what can be a challenging process when there are people from all sides challenging the leadership and challenging the process. You have held your heads high. You have come to a settlement, and it is an awesome opportunity for the iwi to go forward, and I am looking forward to us all being able to be a part of that. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This is a pretty significant day for a large part of the lower Rangitīkei electorate and, of course, for the people who live there. I live on the line—I supposed you could say; if there is such a line in these sort of things—between Ngāti Apa and Rangitāne, and my family have been intertwined with them since the 1840s. Pukepuke Lagoon, for instance, was a part of a piece of land that we leased off the Crown for some hundred-odd years. So it is really quite an exciting opportunity, I think, both for my family to see what goes on with Rangitāne, but, particularly, for the people of Rangitāne. I think that is progress.

If you think about the early days of the Manawatū, the lower Manawatū was covered in flax, and if you think about Foxton, Foxton was built on flax. Much of the industry of the lower Manawatū and the history of the lower Manawatū was intertwined with flax. So the fact that that area is now part of an agreement and a lot of work that has been undertaken by the people of Rangitāne and by their cousins from Ngāti Kauwhata around the Ōroua River and the work that was undertaken on the Manawatū River, it is really a forerunner in New Zealand, I think, to what we are going to see in the future with many partnerships in this kind of environmental management and the management of things that are very important to us. I think that the Manawatū River Leaders’ Accord, and the way in which that has been dealt with by all parties concerned, is a significant example of how things can work extremely well.

I just want to acknowledge one or two people, and I know Minister Finlayson has acknowledged all of the important people of Rangitāne, but I want to speak about a couple in particular, and one was the late Ruth Harris. It would be fair to say that I did not always agree with Ruth, and she did not always agree with me. But that was just how she was, and I am sure that many other people have experienced that in her. I also want to acknowledge Danielle, who I think has held the vision of her mother and her family together and built an organisation that has achieved this outcome today. I know, as many have said earlier, that it was extremely hard work for them all.

None of these things happen easily, none of them happen easily in Parliament, and none of them happen easily in the land of Rangitāne. I want to acknowledge a couple of other people whom I have had a lot to do with in my life. Wīremu and Trieste Te Awe Awe, who live on the banks of the Ōroua River at their home marae, Te Rangimārie, have had their house flooded twice—completely demolished, in fact—in the last 12 years by that river. You have got to wonder what would have happened in the early days, because those rivers must have flooded in the same way. Although, of course, as we play around with the environment, we do cause different effects, and I guess it is a really interesting example as to what has happened in the lower Manawatū, because it is a massive scheme to try to manage that river. It is very different land than it ever used to be.

I want to congratulate Rangitāne. I want to also congratulate Nuk and the Māori Affairs Committee on getting this bill through the House. I want to congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all the work that he has done to get to this point, and I look forward to the next few—well, I suppose it might only be a few, in my case—years watching what happens with Rangitāne and, particularly, in respect of the fact that we are liable to be neighbours, as the Tangimoana Forest was also part of land that my family leased in the early days, and so we will see where we get to. I want to congratulate you. I think it is fantastic progress for us. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the progress that we make in the future. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Tararua me Ruapehu ōku maunga, ko Tākitimu me Aotea ōku waka, nō Rangitāne, Kahungunu-ki-Wairarapa, me Ātihaunui-a-Paparangi au, kia ora koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all throughout the House. Tararua and Ruapehu are my mountains, Tākitimu and Aotea are my canoes, and I belong to Rangitāne, Kahungunu at Wairarapa, and Ātihaunui-ā-Pāpārangi, so greetings to you all.]

I am very pleased to stand on behalf of the Green Party and support the final reading of this legislation. I am actually a bit sad that we were not able to do it at the time when everybody had come down from Palmy for the second—and what was supposed to be the third—reading, but we are here now and that is really good.

The completion of this settlement is a real celebration for the iwi who have been working for decades to achieve this. I also would lend my support to those who have congratulated Danielle Harris, in particular, and the whole team that has been working on this settlement for many years, and, of course, Danielle’s mum, Ruth Harris. It is always good to keep saying the names of those whom we have lost over the years, and it is great that Ruth has been acknowledged so well in the debate on this bill.

I am not going to delay the reading this morning, but I do want to acknowledge the concessions that Rangitāne o Manawatu have made in the process of this settlement. As we have talked about often here, the concessions that iwi make are absolutely enormous. There are two kinds of concessions: the first is in the relationships with other iwi and hapū whom they have to negotiate with over the boundaries of the settlement, and the second is the concessions that are forced on them by the Crown.

Although we often, in this House, apologise for the fact that the reparations that are made are so minor, I do not think that that is enough anymore, and we really need to be looking at how to transform the settlement process, to make sure that it is actually fairer. It is not enough just to say “Thanks for giving up what you lost. Thanks for your contribution and concession to the New Zealand public as a whole.”, because we actually owe them a great deal more.

First, to the concessions with other claimants: Rangitāne o Manawatu have had to give up a number of interests that they held for a very long time over many, many years in order to manage their relationships with other iwi who had other claims in the similar area. That means that it is only a very tiny fraction of what was lost that has been returned. So there was about half a million acres that was lost, and just a tiny fraction of that land, let alone the value of that land, has been returned to them. Some of that is because they have, as other iwi have also, made concessions to make sure that there are adequate settlement packages for the other iwi around them.

So their generosity goes beyond just the general generosity to the Crown as a whole and to the New Zealand public as a whole for not demanding full reparation of what was lost. But their generosity also extends to those iwi, who are also often smaller and do not have much in the way of resources and power, but who also need to have some kind of economic base on which they can continue to build a future for their whānau. Every iwi who makes a settlement is being enormously generous to those around them, as well, and I think we need to recognise that.

This brings me directly to the concessions that Rangitāne o Manawatu, and all iwi, have to make in relation to the Crown, because it is a feature of the Treaty settlements that creates this conflict between iwi and iwi and iwi. It is the very nature of the settlement itself that does that. We have to remember it was the Crown that committed the crimes. It was the Crown that committed the initial crimes. It has also been the Crown that has decided the process by which it will make reparation for those crimes committed. There is not a similar process, I do not think, anywhere in the justice system or in the legal system, where the perpetrator decides both the process and, in effect, the quantum of the reparation made for the crimes that they have committed. That is what the settlement process is.

It has been like that from the start. Iwi Māori have had very little to do with the creation of that process. Yes, there have been some changes over time to make it slightly more effective for those who are negotiating—for iwi who are negotiating—but the fundamentals are still there. It is still the Crown that decides the rules. It is the Crown that decides whom it negotiates with. It is the Crown that decides the quantum of the reparation, and anybody who has dealt with settlements in detail, as a number of us in this House have, knows that it is very rare for the Crown to shift the value of that quantum in the process of a settlement. So, really, it is not really that much of a negotiation on the fundamentals. It is a negotiation around the edges. So the concessions that iwi make in the Treaty settlement process are actually about those fundamentals, because they have no choice but to agree to the Crown’s construction of how the settlement should go. That is absolutely an enormous concession by a victim of a crime. Let us not forget that that is fundamental, and it can change. It does not have to be like that for ever.

This is one of the reasons that the Green Party does not accept settlements as full and final. We support them because we support the work that iwi and hapū do to get to this point. It can take decades and decades, and no way are we going to undermine their work and effort over that time and the loss that they incur over those many years in the negotiations process. But it also means that we are honour-bound not to accept these as full and final. They are a deal; they are a negotiation about an economic resource.

There is a requirement from the Crown to apologise and to accept the crimes that the Crown committed in the past—that is good. We think that is the right thing to do. The reparation that is made is a tiny fraction of what was lost, and we accept that that is the way the process is now. But these settlements are about providing an economic base and the return of some land in order to enable iwi to develop some economic independence. We accept that too, but that is not Treaty justice. That is not the same thing as justice.

What it is, then, is that settlements are a step on the journey towards Treaty justice, because Treaty justice is rangatiratanga. Treaty justice is genuine partnership, and the settlement process is not that. It enables iwi to be able to develop some resources, to grow in economic power and resources, and to help build their whānau so that their whānau are doing more and better in terms of being stronger and more resourced, with more agency and more independence over some of the decisions that they are making about themselves, but that is not full and final settlement of the colonisation process that did so much damage after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed and in contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We are really pleased to be able to support this legislation. We are really pleased that Rangitāne o Manawatu are going to get some of their economic resource back and control over their whenua taonga tuku iho. Of course they should have that. It is unspeakable to think that they should not. But neither do we accept that this is the end of the process for Treaty justice for them or for us, as members of the House of Representatives; nor is it for any Government, now or in the future, the end of the process. There will come a time when the next stages of rangatiratanga need to be part of this process. We are up for it in the Green Party. We are up for this conversation about what this looks like. We want to see Treaty justice in this country, and we are committed to working alongside iwi to achieve that. In the meantime, until we get to that point, we welcome the settlement and we welcome the reparation that is being made for their settlement. We look forward to Rangitāne o Manawatu being able to celebrate at the conclusion of this bill. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātau i roto i Te Whare, koutou Rangitāne o Manawatu kua tae mai nei i waenganui i a tātau i te rā nei. Kei te tautoko i ngā mihi a te tuakana mai i Te Tai Hauāuru ki te whakatau i a koutou kei waenganui i a tātau i te rā nei. E tika ana, nāna i whakahuangia ētahi o koutou i ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Nā reira, kei te mihi hoki ki a rātau, ki a rātau i takahia te ara whānui a Tāne i rūpeke ki tua-o-Paerau. Nā reira, ko rātau ki a rātau, hoki mai ki a tātau i mahuengia mai e rātau: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Tēnā hoki i a tātau i whakatakoto kōrero e pā ana ki te pire i mua i a tātau i te rā nei. I a mātau i roto o Aotearoa Tuatahi karekau kē he raru ki te pire. Kei te tautoko ngā kōrero i kōrerohia i a rātau i tū ake i mua i a au i te ata nei; kore he kōrero i tua atu i tēnā. Nā reira, kei mōhio mai Te Whare, kei te tautoko i a mātau i te pire nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us in the House, and to Rangitāne o Manawatu who have arrived amongst us on this day. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the senior colleague from Te Tai Hauāuru in paying homage to you collectively amongst us on this day. It is fitting that he should mention some of you who are no longer seen and whose faces are lost from view. And so I pay a tribute to those, as well, who have traversed the broad highway of Tāne and have gathered beyond the meeting place of the dead. So leave them there with each other, let us come back to us, the ones that they left behind them: acknowledgments, accolades, and salutations to you collectively.

Congratulations also to those of you who made a contribution on this day about the bill before us. We of New Zealand First do not have any issue at all about the bill. I endorse the contributions that were made before I rose this morning; there is nothing further to say. And so the House should note that we are supporting this bill.]

I want to join with those who have already spoken in this debate in support of this bill, which culminates the end of a journey for those who have been responsible for bringing this matter first of all before the tribunal and now into legislation. As previous speakers have stated, it has been a long journey, and that journey has been led by a number of people, some of whom have already been acknowledged.

Of course, mentioned not once but several times has been one Danielle Harris. I just want to join with the acknowledgment of her, but also remind her of her Ngāpuhitanga. Given the state of our claims in the North and given the description by those who have acknowledged you of your tenacity, your strength, and all that, perhaps—well, not perhaps; we could certainly use that sort of approach back in the North. I just want to acknowledge that, but more importantly to acknowledge her father, as well. I knew her grandmother and her mother very well, so it does not come as any surprise. The description that my colleagues in the House have given of you, Danielle, as I said, is no surprise, but I hope that your people of Rangitāne o Manawatu might consider sharing you with us in the North. Mā te wā.

[See you later.]

This bill culminates the work and sacrifice of those people who took up the challenge to redress their claim. As people have said, the signing of the agreement back in 1998 certainly indicates just how long their battle has been to get it to this stage today. I think that that ought to be acknowledged. As we well know, the loss that they have suffered is not fully compensated for by this bill. I think that, as with all settlements, the nation needs to acknowledge the contribution that those iwi who have settled are making to our nation in order that these issues can be put aside and acknowledged, and in order that each of the respective iwi can now look forward with anticipation.

Of course, the settlement is all about addressing land loss and the alienation of lands and properties once owned by the iwi. This bill goes some way to addressing that issue. The apology, of course, is an acknowledgment of the wrongs on the part of the Crown, and, as someone said, it does not undo that wrong. This generation and future generations will benefit from this settlement. It will also provide an economic and cultural base for this generation and coming generations of Rangitāne o Manawatu.

Some people in this House were probably surprised by the support that New Zealand First is giving to this bill, unlike to previous bills. However, I just want to make the point that clause 42 of this bill acknowledges the establishment of an advisory board that allows its members to give advice to the local body in terms of the management of the Manawatū River. It does not make it compulsory for the local body to, first of all, accept the advice that the advisory board will give, but it must give due regard to any advice that that board may give. It is on that basis, together with the quantum that has been agreed to by the iwi, that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.

I must say that I have some sympathy for the negotiators, because there will always be some people within their own tribe who will have a contrary view regarding what has been reached today. History will record who those negotiators were and who was responsible for making the decisions, but that is an indication of what leadership is all about. Sometimes the decisions that are made are not always accepted by all, but they do give an indication of, and give some support for, the thinking at the time. Therefore, those who have made those decisions need to be acknowledged, and that has already been done in this House today.

I do not want to go on too much further, other than to acknowledge the iwi, to acknowledge the people who helped carry this kaupapa to this stage, and to commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Anei te mihi atu ki a koutou e hui nei i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou kua tae ā-tinana mai, ā-kanohi nei ki te whakarongo, ā, kia kite anō i te tutukitanga o ō wawata, tautohetohe, pukumahi, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, te uri o Rangitāne, o Kurahaupō, o Whātonga. Nei te mihi atu ki a koutou ōku whanaunga; tēnā koutou, nau mai, haramai ki tō tātau Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Here is my tribute to you collectively who have gathered physically and visibly here at this time to listen and to see once again the completion of your aspirations, contentions, and hard work, therefore greetings and salutations to you collectively, congratulations and well done to you, the offspring of Rangitāne, Kurahaupō, and Whātonga. I pay a tribute to you, my relatives; congratulations, welcome, and come hither to our House.]

In recent days I have been reminded of the importance of these things. Last week we had the Taranaki bills come, and many of the people who came wore the raukura in their hair. Yesterday I was at Papawai Marae, and their patu was returned from overseas, from a museum in California. It was gifted to Lord Ranfurly at the time, and it was a symbol that connected us to our old people and to our ancestors, because it was handled, touched, and gifted by Mahupuku of the Māori Parliament to Lord Ranfurly. I was reminded of that, and I wondered at the time: “Why didn’t I know about these things when I went to school?”

Many of you may or may not know that I went to Queen Elizabeth College for a time in Palmerston North.

Hon Members: Hey!

MARAMA FOX: That is right—there are many things you fullas do not know about me. I lived in Highbury with my mum. [Interruption] Boom! See? Or “ping!”—which is like “boom!”, but with treble. Anyway—ping! So I lived in Highbury and went to Queen Elizabeth College. We learnt, in the education of my father’s whakapapa, that Elizabeth I and II were great queens. We learnt about the settling of Aotearoa—how it was “discovered” by Cook. We learnt about how Māori came to Aotearoa on a waka, starving and bereft, and accidentally ran into it. These are the things that I learnt in the education of my father’s whakapapa.

While I was there I joined my first ever kapa haka group, and I started to realise that there was another knowledge that had been withheld from me through a lack of language. As I started to learn those things, I realised: “Oh my goodness! These people that I’m going to school with, they’re my cousins.” How did I know that? Well, when I started to learn the mātauranga Māori of my mother’s whakapapa—that came with language—I realised that that place that I grew up in called “Tee Wit” was actually “Te Whiti”. I went “Oh my goodness—who knew?”, and I thought “Jingos! I’m related to those fullas from Taranaki. Te Whiti o Rongomai—must be, because it says ‘Te Whiti’. Wow!”.

As I learnt more knowledge in the mātauranga Māori of my mother’s whakapapa, I realised: “No, silly, it means Te Whiti o Tūtewake, who himself has whakapapa to Rangitāne, but from Wairarapa.” Tūtewake was known in the Māori Land Court records as a great warrior. It says: “he whakatō tāne nō Tūtewake, he toa” [“a male conceived from Tūtewake, a champion”]. I went: “Oh my goodness—the making of a man is in Tūtewake, the warrior.” And then I read the story. He was not “the man” because he was a warrior, and he was not “the man” because he was a great chief—and he was—or descended from Rangitāne, and actually from Kahungunu as well.

Koro Kuki always said to us: “You’ve got a leg in each waka, and you can’t separate them.” I went: “All right then. Ko tāua tēnā! [That’s you and me!]”. Anyway, I learned that Te Whiti o Tūtewake reminded us of the place where Tūtewake crossed the river to save his sister, Tauraharakeke, who had taken herself away to die because she did not want to be married off to some koroheke. It was a thing—we have let it go. Ha, ha! But he went to save her.

So when I learnt the whakapapa and the mātauranga of my father’s whakapapa—the English schooling—I heard that I was greedy. People said to me: “Marama, why do you Māori people have to be so greedy? Why can’t you just accept what you have?”. When did they ask me that question? It was after Waitangi Day every year, when all they saw was Māori people protesting, saying: “Give us back our land.”

So in the education of my father’s whakapapa I was told I was greedy. I had a good education, but I was still told I was greedy. But in the education of my mother’s whakapapa, I was told that we were great—that our people were great. We were born of greatness—descended from Whātonga, who traversed the land and named the places, who was an explorer and discoverer, who travelled across the oceans on Kurahaupō waka, following the stars, navigating by the phosphorus of the ocean and the tides along the Hikurangi Trench.

Adrian Rurawhe: Sounds like you’re talking about Samoans.

MARAMA FOX: I might be; there might be some connection. Ha, ha! But I digress. You know, we come here today to acknowledge your history, our history, and the fight that has come to this point, where, all of a sudden, when I go back to Palmerston North and the Manawatū, I find that there are kura kaupapa Māori, that there are kura that raised our children in the knowledge that they were great, and that they have aspirations for their future. Your Treaty settlement today reminds us of that.

I acknowledge those who have passed on. I had a whole speech and I have not followed it, and I am supposed to shorten my time. I acknowledge Rangihararu Fitzgerald, Tānenuiārangi Te Aweawe, Kura Terangi Baker, Ruth Harris, and Kararaina Tait. Those are not all the people whom we have lost along the way, but they are a reminder that in the years—the generations—that we have lost coming to this point, we cannot waste more generations going forward to put to good use the benefits of the things that you have fought for and struggled for, and to remind our children forevermore that they were born of greatness, not greed. Nā reira, e Te Iwi, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[And so to you, the tribe, I acknowledge you collectively.]

The last thing I just want to mention is the awa. You are going to have restored to you co-management or advice about how to restore the awa—one of the reportedly most polluted rivers in the whole of the country. What was pristine when our people lived next to it is no longer pristine. The mauri that we sought from it has been disturbed, and the decision making is now in your hands, to give advice. It would have been great if that advice could flow on to real decision-making power at the table, so that even though you give advice, it cannot be ignored, as has been done around the country for years and years. We still continue to fight for that. Nō reira, e aku whanaunga, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou: “Tini whetū ki Te Rangi, Rangitāne ki Te Whenua.” Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa!

[And so to you, my kin, I salute you collectively: “Like the innumerable stars in the sky, so is Rangitāne on the land.” Congratulations and well done to you collectively, my appreciation to us all!]

JOANNE HAYES (National): E ngā whānau whānui o Rangitāne o Manawatu, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira. Ki ngā mokopuna i tēnei rā, ko te tīmatanga o te heke mai kanapa nā tēnei rā, ka whakawhetai ahau. Ka whakahōnore i te hunga mahi pakeke ki te whakarite i te heke mai ā tōna wā hoki ki a koutou katoa.

[To the extended family of Rangitāne o Manawatu, salutations to you collectively, welcome and come forth to the wonderful day! To the grandchildren of this day, as a consequence of this day glisten will begin to come down, which I am grateful for. I honour the ones who worked in a mature manner to determine what totally should come down to all of you eventually.]

I stand proud to take this call, to record just how proud I am of Rangitāne o Manawatu getting to this stage today in the House. I used to work in Palmerston North. Many years ago, someone said to me: “Because of all the raruraru, Jo, Rangitāne would be lucky to actually get to conclude their claims settlement.” Oh, how wrong they were. I said nothing at the time, because I had lots of faith that you would get here. I knew, Danielle, that you would get here because of the determination of your mother, Ruth Harris, and all the kaumātua who sat around her at the time, to bring this to fruition today.

To think that there are people out there who think today is a nothing day—that what the Crown is resolving and concluding today with Rangitāne is nothing. Well, they are very wrong. It is, as I have said many times in this House, the beginning of the economic development for iwi. This is going to be for Rangitāne o Manawatu as well. So many things can happen and go forward now for Rangitāne. All the arguments, all the discussions, all the agreements and disagreements have all come to a conclusion, and today is the day that you go forward, and with you you take not just your past but all your mokopuna of today and in the future.

I want to acknowledge Danielle—Danielle and her team. Wow! As the Minister said, your determination to get here today, to bring the whānau together, from the three strands of Rangitāne o Manawatu, is an accomplishment that will go down in the history books of Rangitāne o Manawatu, and it has its rightful place there, Danielle. I am very proud today of what you have done for all of us in Rangitāne.

The Rangitāne o Manawatu deed of settlement could best be described as a fine cheese, but it has taken time to mature, and today we unwrap it and take a slice—only a slice—to go on our cracker, to celebrate the coming of your deed of settlement, as it moves to receive the Royal assent.

I look forward, as a member of Rangitāne, to witnessing what the future will hold for our people in Manawatū. I am proud that many, many plans and a future will happen for our young people in Manawatū and wider afield. I know that with the leadership of your post-settlement governance entity, led by Danielle, only good things will come for you, and I look forward to witnessing that in the future. So, without any further ado, I congratulate you. I say go forth, be successful, be very successful, be at the top of your game, and I will be there to stand and say: “Yes, these are my people, Rangitāne o Manawatu.” Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ā, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa. Ko koutou o Rangitāne o Manawatu, tēnā koutou, hara mai, tēnā koutou, hara mai, tēnā koutou hoki mai! Tēnā koutou i haramai i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira, tō rā, tō tātau rā, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi!

[And so thank you indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all, members of this House. So it is you, Rangitāne o Manawatu, accolades to you collectively, welcome, greetings, come hither, and welcome back! Congratulations to you as a consequence of the matter of great significance. It is your day and ours, so I commend, extol, and salute you!]

It is indeed my honour and privilege to rise and contribute to the third and final reading of the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill. When most Māori meet one another, they generally try to get a relationship going. While I have been sitting here listening to all the previous speeches, thoughts came to my mind, and I want to share a couple of connections with the Manawatū. I used to play netball many, many years ago. We often used to go to the Manawatū. It was one of our stomping grounds many years ago when I played for Wellington. So I immediately thought about the very windy, windy conditions of the Manawatū netball courts.

Jono Naylor: It’s not often.

MEKA WHAITIRI: You know, we did really well there, Jono, in the Manawatū. So that thought came to mind. Whenever I came to the Manawatū, to Palmerston North, the home of my late uncle and auntie, Judy and Boy, to us, or Bill Nīkora, was often the first home we visited. And then I thought about the story, not specifically related to Rangitāne but Rangitāne Tāmaki-nui-ā-rua and Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, when my grandmother, the late Ruruhira Robin, was picked up, often to go to iwi hui. It was often either Kahungunu on one side, or Rangitāne on the other side. Anyway, the story got relayed to me that she got collected by the Kahungunu side of her, to go to an iwi hui, to go and vote, and when it came to the voting on some particular kaupapa, my grandmother voted for the Rangitāne side. It caused quite a stir for my Kahungunu side. When they asked my grandmother “Why did you vote against the very people who picked up?”, she said that she was Rangitāne and she was Kahungunu, and at the end of the day she made the best choice at that particular hui. These are just some stories that I am trying to share in this House that have some relevance to the people who are in our gallery to hear the third and final reading.

Every Treaty settlement is unique—every Treaty settlement is unique. I want to acknowledge the leader of the Green Party because she picked up a lot of the kōrero that I wanted to talk about, and that is the concessions done by the Rangitāne people. I want to briefly talk about the compromises that Rangitāne made in relation to the cross-claims. When I look at their particular settlement, there are a number of cross-claim issues that they dealt with and I want to acknowledge the way in which they dealt with them.

I just want to quickly mention what these issues were that were raised through their particular settlement, and that is the eastern boundary of the Rangitāne o Manawatu area of interest. Clearly, that is with their whanaunga of Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, Rangitāne ki Tāmaki-nui-ā-rua. It is pleasing to know that they worked out a settle position where they amended the shape of the area to be invested in Rangitāne o Manawatu in relation to the Tararua ranges and by excluding areas in the Ruahine Forest Park included in the proposed Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-ā-rua settlement from the Rangitāne o Manawatu statutory acknowledgment for the park.

Issue No. 2 was the inclusion of Tangimoana Crown forest licence land in the Rangitāne o Manawatu settlement, obviously cross-claimed by Wai 972, which is the Ngāti Kauwhata people. Of course, there was some interest expressed by the Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga in relation to the Tangimoana Crown forest licence land. I am pleased to say that Rangitāne absolutely put up the proposition, rightfully so, using the principle of ahi kā in the region since the 1600s—nearly 250 years. So I want to acknowledge that on the basis of using what is a natural tikanga in Māoridom, the principle of ahi kā, the Tangimoana Crown forest licence was then included in the Rangitāne o Manawatu settlement.

I want to note that the Crown has offered commercial redress and it seeks to balance interests of all iwi in the area with the underpinning rationale that commercial redress is intended to contribute to re-establishing an iwi’s economic base. Essentially, I take that as saying, for Ngāti Kauwhata and Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga: “Don’t worry, the Crown has got you covered.”

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Correct.

MEKA WHAITIRI: That is right. Thank you for endorsing that sentiment, Minister.

The other key point was the effect of the Rangitāne o Manawatu exclusion redress on other groups. Similar to the first issue around Ngāti Kauwhata and, obviously, Ngāti Raukawa, it is good that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister for Māori Development have agreed to a package to modify one of the key aspects in regard to the Himatangi Bush Scientific Reserve so that the right of first refusal be removed and the overlay classification be reduced to only 50 percent of the reserve.

Lastly, the point I want to pick up that is unique in this particular settlement is the inclusion of Ngāti Tauira hapū in the Rangitāne o Manawatu claims, just to acknowledge that in Rangitāne’s own submission, they acknowledge that Ngāti Tauira is a hapū of Ngāti Apa. They do not profess to be an exclusive association with Ngāti Tauira. I also acknowledge the rangatira to rangatira marriages between Ngāti Tauira and, obviously, Rangitāne o Manawatu.

The point of why I raise these is that this is the principle of negotiating when we come to Treaty settlement, and that is manaaki tangata, manaaki kaupapa, manaaki whakapapa—if you get the people at the table, if you give them the right information and enough time, I am convinced that iwi will come to the right conclusion, particularly when it comes to Treaty settlements. No better has this been demonstrated than through the Rangitāne o Manawatu settlement. They have shown, like others have said, absolute compassion, patience, and an absolute belief that through our own processes of negotiation—our tikanga process of negotiation, based on those principles of manaaki tangata, manaaki kaupapa, manaaki whakapapa—I think that we have got to a very, very just conclusion.

That is my contribution for the third reading of this bill. I thank the Rangitāne people, of course, for your patience. I definitely want to acknowledge those who are no longer here. To Danielle, and Maurice Takarangi, who has been mentioned, thank you very much for the leadership you have shown in getting your people to this final place. I want to thank the Minister and, obviously, the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that you have done.

Finally, my closing remark: there has been some point said that more MPs should be in the House when we have Treaty settlement readings. I concur with that. I want to acknowledge my colleague Peeni Henare for raising this issue. It is something that all members of this House should be part of in the passage of any Treaty bills, but particularly last week with Taranaki, and, of course, we have got Rangitāne here today. It is important that we remind ourselves why we come to this House, and when we pass important legislation like Treaty bills we should be here to celebrate the successful passage of this. Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e ngā mema o Te Whare, e ngā iwi motu o Rangitāne-o-Manawatū, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa!

[And so to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and members of the House, and to the Rangitāne people from Manawatū who were cut off, congratulations and well done to you collectively and to us all!]

JONO NAYLOR (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ngā mihi ki a koutou ki Rangitāne, e Te Iwi, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively, Rangitāne, welcome to you, the tribe, and come forth to the House of Parliament. To you, the deaths, go forth, depart, and journey on indeed.]

It seems entirely appropriate to me to particularly acknowledge, at the beginning of this speech, those who have passed on. There has been a lot of talk about that this morning, but I specifically do this as something quite poignant reminded me this morning: Ruth Harris, who started this process, has passed on. Then I think, also, of Pōtaka Tāite, who was to be a part of the final part of this process on the post-settlement board, who has also passed on, and, of course, many others in between. I just want to acknowledge them.

Much has been said already with regard to this bill and this settlement, and I do not want to dwell on that further, but I feel incredibly privileged to have received a letter in the last week or so from Danielle Harris, who has been the principal negotiator on behalf of Rangitāne in this settlement. She has asked me whether I could read out this short message, because they wanted their views to be able to be noted in this House. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, I will now read this, in terms of an acknowledgment to Mr Finlayson and his work here.

These are the words of Danielle Harris: “Minister Finlayson, as you are aware, Rangitāne o Manawatu, over their 19 years of negotiations, have worked with a number of Treaty Ministers from both sides of the House. Without doubt, you have been by far the most genuine, committed, reliable, and focused Minister we have dealt with. We are aware from time to time you have faced challenges with progressing our claim, but you always honoured your words and persevered over the many obstacles to enable us to be here today. New Zealand and iwidom are extremely fortunate to have such a person of your calibre in this crucial role as we settle our past to move forward as a nation. On a personal level, it has been a true pleasure and honour to work with you, and you shall always be held in very high regard by all the people of Rangitāne, as it has been under your stewardship we have all settled our Treaty claims. We sincerely wish you well for the future, wherever your path takes you.”

I would just like to now quickly raise a point of order in order to table this letter in the House. I seek the leave of the House to table this letter from Danielle Harris.

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

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

JONO NAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With that, I would like to conclude my speech on this, and to say congratulations to Rangitāne. I look forward to continuing to work with you. I have always enjoyed working with you in the various roles that I have had in our community, and I now look forward to seeing Rangitāne prosper even further within their rohe. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill

Second Reading

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koutou ngā Iwi o Te Awa o Whanganui, karanga mai, mihi mai, aku rangatira; tēnā tātou katoa.

[Salutations to you, the tribes of the Whanganui River, call and accord a tribute hither, my esteemed ones; accolades to us all.]

I just want to say—as the Deputy Speaker, I do not get to make a speech—that I want to welcome you here, as members from my patch. Thank you for your attendance today. We look forward to this historic day. I just want to also add my congratulations to my beloved cousin and the work that he has done, and the creative response he has to this long-running issue.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill be now read a second time. The bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Whanganui Iwi that was concluded in August 2014 up the river, not far from Jerusalem. The deed of settlement has two parts. First, “Ruruku Whakatupua—Te Mana o Te Awa Tupua” establishes a new legal framework, “Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua” for the Whanganui River that is centred on the legal recognition of Te Awa Tupua as an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating all its physical and metaphysical elements. Secondly, “Ruruku Whakatupua—Te Mana o Te Iwi o Whanganui” addresses that very special—indeed, intimate—relationship between Whanganui Iwi and the Whanganui River. It contains an iwi narrative, an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and an apology, and cultural and financial redress for Whanganui iwi.

Can I acknowledge the work of the Whanganui iwi negotiators, some of whom are in the gallery today. Can I especially acknowledge my negotiator John Wood, our former ambassador in Washington on two occasions and more recently well-known for his work for me, both in relation to this claim and also Ngāi Tūhoe. Of course, he is now resident in Kaikōura and has had to deal with all those issues. He is a wonderful New Zealander, and I acknowledge him. I acknowledge the Government and other agencies that have contributed to this bill.

One person I particularly want to mention on my side is Dr Briar Gordon from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who led the drafting on this very complex and innovative bill—I acknowledge my friends nodding in the gallery. She would contact me from time to time and say: “Well, how do I express in legislation these metaphysical elements?”, but she got there with the help of Jamie Ferguson, counsel for Whanganui Iwi. So I acknowledge the tremendous work on both sides that was done to achieve the drafting, but I particularly acknowledge Briar Gordon. I also thank the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Mr Korako and his team have once again done an excellent job in progressing this bill in a timely manner.

Given the, shall we say, interesting circumstances of the last few days, there are two other people I specifically wish to acknowledge. At the conclusion of the last debate there were some very generous comments made about me, but I have to say that in my 8 years as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations there are two other people who are responsible for progressing these claims, and without them I would be nothing. There is the Prime Minister of this country, who has been so tremendously supportive of me in this work. I can think of critical moments, both in relation to this negotiation and, for example, the Ngāi Tūhoe negotiation, when, because we were dealing with very innovative redress, both could have gone off the rails. Both could have failed. They did not fail, because of the Prime Minister.

There are some people, including former leaders of my party, who have said that he did not make a contribution. Well, I have to say, it is only because they do not understand this stuff and never would. They live in a world that never was and never could be. But John Key is going to go down in history for a number of reasons, and he is going to go down in history for being a Prime Minister who was tremendously supportive to his Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and who enabled this important work to be done.

The second person who deserves very special accolades is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. So often I have had to do my Oliver Twist act with him—“Please, sir, I want some more.”—and he looks at me and says: “What is it about you that causes me to have to spend so much money?”. But he is always there, because he understands—even though he only went to St Patrick’s College, Silverstream, as opposed to those of us, like Mr Swain and I, who went to a slightly better school: St Patrick’s College, Wellington. He understands what social justice is all about. He understands the need to conclude these settlements. He is a great New Zealander, and I mihi to both of them. It has been a pleasure to serve with them. This has a sort of valedictory tone to it. Well, I can assure you that, like Mrs Thatcher, until the tomahawk goes in I intend to go on and on and on.

The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 24 May 2016 and 21 submissions were received from interested individuals and groups. The committee heard 11 of these hearings at Whanganui and Wellington during August and September 2016. The committee reported back to the House on 24 November and recommended that the bill be passed with changes to the definition of Whanganui iwi and to the Crown nomination process for Te Pou Tupua, the river guardians.

The bill’s definition of Whanganui iwi references a list of those hapū who were active in the 1950 Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Bed of the Whanganui River. The definition is intended to define the groups that fall within the meaning of the term “Whanganui iwi” for the purposes of this legislation, primarily being the settlement of Whanganui River claims. Importantly, it does not define those groups for any other purpose. Submissions by Uenuku Charitable Trust, on behalf of Ngāti Uenuku and Ngāti Tamahaki and Te Iwi O Ngāti Hāua Charitable Trust, requested that the bill reflect their status as iwi. To avoid future confusion, the committee recommended clarifying the explanatory note in schedule 1 to emphasise that the groups listed, which do include Ngāti Uenuku and Ngāti Hāua, may also consider themselves to be iwi. The amendment also includes Ngāti Tamahaki as an example of a group affiliated with Whanganui iwi, even though it is not expressly identified in the 1950 list. I am pleased with the outcome proposed by the committee, as it should provide a level of comfort to these groups regarding their status under the bill.

During the consultation on this bill the committee was made aware of an oversight in the Te Pou Tupua appointment process. As the role of Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will not exist indefinitely, the committee recommended amending clause 20(1B) to provide that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is responsible only for the first Crown nomination to Te Pou Tupua. The committee has recommended that the Minister for the Environment should be responsible for future nominations. The committee has also recommended that both the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister for the Environment should consult with the Minister for Māori Development, the Minister of Conservation, and any other relevant Ministers when making the Crown nomination. This proposal recognises the importance of this appointment process within the Crown. Indeed, Te Pou Tupua can be seen as symbolic of the relationship between iwi and the Crown that was envisaged by the Treaty.

I am satisfied with these recommendations as they provide Whanganui iwi and the Crown surety for the future appointments of Te Pou Tupua. Although the office of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is gradually being done out of a job, I am very pleased that I will still lead the first Te Pou Tupua nomination for the Crown. Te Pou Tupua is a central element to the settlement and I will work to ensure the appointments are made by settlement date.

This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stages of settling the historical claims of Whanganui iwi to the great river, and I am so excited that this novel and innovative redress will soon become the law of our land. My concluding remarks to my friends from the various Whanganui iwi are that there is still some work to be done; there is still some unfinished business. I see my friend Mr Mair up there. We need to get on with those land claims, and he has been doing great work in encouraging folk to get stuck in. Hopefully, 2017 will see some real advances in that direction as well. So with those words, I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Reo Māori e Te Māngai o Te Whare, kāti: “Ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri”, tēnei e wehi tonu ana ki tō tātou Kaihanga mō āna manākitanga katoa ka ūhia mai ki runga i a tātau i te rā nei.

He whakatau tēnei ki a Whanganui Awa, ōna hapū, ōna marae maha, ki runga i te tāhūhū ō tō tātou Whare e tū nei. Haere mai rā koutou, haere mai rā koutou! Ka pērā ki te rerenga o tō koutou awa, he maha ngā piko, he maha ngā āmiomiotanga ki runga i Te Awa o Whanganui, ērangi kai konei tonu koutou i te rā nei, kāti, e mihi atu ana!

Pīkauria mai ngā mate o te wā, ka tāpae atu ki ngā mate maha kei runga i ā mātou e tangi atu nei. Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tōku tuakana ā Awa-nui-ā Rangi, o Tauranga Moana, i riro atu i Te Rātapu kua pahure ake nei. Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te kuia rongonui, i ngaro atu ki raro i te maru o Taranaki Maunga, ki roto i ngā rangi kua tahā ake nei, kāti, rātau ki a rātau, ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātau katoa! Mō tētahi wā paku iti nei, ka huri atu ahau ki Te Reo Pākehā.

[Māori language, Mr Deputy Speaker, well then: “The emblem of God in the vanguard, the food-bearers in the rear”, and so this one remains in awe of our Creator in regards to all his generosity and care that he has spread over us on this day.

I pay homage to this Whanganui River, its hapū, and many, many marae under the ridgepole of our House standing here. Welcome indeed to you collectively, come hither! Like the flows of your river, there are many swirls upon the Whanganui River, but you are still here today and so I must commend you!

Bring forth the deaths of the moment that are upon you and lay them out before the many that are upon us grieving here before you. I think about my elder one, Awa-nui-ā-Rangi of Tauranga, who passed away on the Sunday just passed, and the well-known elderly lady who died under the shadow of Mount Taranaki during the past few days just gone, so let them remain there amongst themselves, and bring back the focus of the contributions upon us the living, acknowledgments to us all. I turn to speak in English for just a brief moment.]

It is not often I speak in English on these types of bills and I will be speaking only very briefly in English to congratulate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I am really quite happy to hear of his close working relationship with the outgoing Prime Minister, Mr Key, and, clearly, the person whom he supports to replace him, in Mr English. He mentioned the kind of compromise and begging he has had to do at the table of Mr English, and I say to my colleague Mr Paraone: “By crikey, I think Ngāpuhi could be in with a bloody big rise, come settlement time for Ngāpuhi.”

Ki Te Minita, e mihi atu ana au ki a ia me ōna mahi katoa ki te tutuki i ngā āhuatanga o tēnei pire, me ngā pire kua kōrerohia e tēnei Whare ki roto i ngā wiki, mārama, tau kua pahure ake nei. I kōrero mai Te Minita mō ētahi ō āna āpiha, e mihi atu ana au ki ā rātau, ngā āpiha o Te Karauna, me Te Heamana o Te Rōpu Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori o te wā nei, arā, ko Tutehounuku Korako, ā, koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Rōpu Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori. E mihi atu ana tā te mea, te nui hoki o ngā mahi a Te Minita, nā, ko ngā pire me ngā kiko kei roto, ka tau ki runga i te tēpū o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori.

I rongo atu ahau e pā ana ki tēnei pire, ko reira ngā kaitautoko, arā, ko te nuinga! Ērangi, ko reira anō wētahi amuamu, totohe, ngā take e pā ana ki a tātau Te Iwi Māori, ngā take rawa tēnei mō te whāki atu ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei wā. Ko tāku, kua roa rawa e mea atu ana, ko ngā take o Te Ao Māori, waihona atu mā te marae e ea ai, e tau ai, tutuki ai. Kāti, e mihi atu ana ki ngā tāngata katoa kua kōkiri nei i tēnei pire kai mua i te aroaro mō te pānuitanga tuarua i te rā nei.

Kāti, i kite atu ahau i ngā, me kī, ngā whakapapa kai roto i te pire, ka whakaritea nei i ētahi rōpū, i ētahi ope, i ētahi kāhui rangatira hei whakahaere i ētahi o ngā mahi e pā ana ki Te Awa o Wanganui. Ko tetahi wahanga, anā, ko te oranga o te wai, ko te oranga o te awa whānui mai i te maunga tere atu ki te moana, he mea pai tēnā!

I a au e pānui ana i ngā whakapapa o te pire, nā, kua wahaina ki roto i te pire nei, ko Te Awa Tupua, ko Tupua te kawa, ko Te Pou Tupua, ko Te Karewao, ko Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua, ko Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua, kia matāra rawa te korotete o Te Awa Tupua. Wēnei whakapapa katoa kai roto i te pire! E mihi atu ana ki tērā atu āhuatanga, me te whakatūpato i ā tātau ki roto i ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro. Ko ēnei whakapapa kua kōrerohia nei e te pire, e ōrite ana ki te terenga o te wai, ko ngā āmiomio kei roto, ko ngā piko e haukoti nei i te wai, nā, ko reira ngā tūpatotanga. Nō reira, koina tāku atu ki a tātau i te rā nei.

Ka huri i tua atu ki tērā kaupapa i kōrerohia mai nā e Te Minita, e pā ana ki te tikanga me Te Ao o Te Māori, ka whakaturengia ki roto i te ture ā Te Pākehā, i roto i ngā pire tatūngā take Tiriti kua pahure ake nei. Kua roa rawa au e mea atu ana, āe mārika, kia matāra tātau! Ki te whakawhāiti tātau me ō tātau ake āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori ki roto i ngā ture o Te Pākehā, tēnā pea ka tīpoki, ka tahuri te waka! Tēnā pea, ka raru ko ngā tikanga ā ō tātau mātua, ā ō tātau tūpuna.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tetahi atu o ngā pire ki roto i a au o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa me te kī atu, ā, ko ngā uri o tēnei tupuna anake ka whai pānga ki tēnei pire. Kaua au e whakaae ana ki tērā tūāhuatanga, ka haukoti nei i te āhuatanga o te whāngai tamariki. Ka haukoti nei i ngā āhuatanga ka kitea ia rā, ia rā, ki roto i ngā whānau me ngā hapori o te kāinga. Koinā ngā tūpatotanga kai roto i tēnei pire i a au e pānui ana i ōna kiko, i ōna kōrero katoa.

Nā, ka kōrero atu ahau mō te āhuatanga o tēnei mea, Te Awa, me te kī atu, āe, e ai ki te pire nei, he tangata. He oranga tōna, he mauri tōna, e tautoko ana au i tērā tūāhuatanga, āe. Āe mārika e tautoko ana au i tērā tūāhuatanga, koinā anō. Ko tāku wero atu ki tēnei Whare, me Te Minita, ka pēhea ngā wai Māori puta noa? Ki roto i a au, ki roto i ā māua ko Pita Paraone o te kāinga, ko Whatitiri Te Maunga, ko Porotī Te Kāinga, anā, ko Te Waipuna o ngā mātua tūpuna. Ko reira te totohe mō tēnei take o te wai. I kī atu mātau ki Te Minita me ōna āpiha katoa, he oranga tōna, he mauri tōna. Nā, kua roa rawa mātau o taua kāinga rā, e whai pānga ana ki tēnei wai kaukau o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna, kāti. Ko tāku atu, he nui ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro.

Ko te mea pai o tēnei pire, kua tīmata! Kua tīmata te ture ki te aro mai ki ngā kōrero a ō tātau mātua, ki ngā mahi a ō tātau tūpuna me te hiahia, kia puāwai tonu mai, kia whakawhanake ai ngā kōrero mō ngā uri whakatupu ā taihoa ake nei, kāti! Ki roto i te toenga o te wā, ka mihi kau atu ki a Wanganui, me wā rātau hiahia ki te kōkiri ngātahi, ki te kawe ngātahi i tēnei take kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare Pāremata, me Te Minita a Chris Finlayson; e mihi atu au ki tērā atu tūāhuatanga. I kōrero mai Te Minita mō tērā, ahakoa te pai o ēnei kupu ki roto i te pire, ē hoa, ka mamae tonu Te Iwi Māori, ngā Iwi o Whanganui.

Ka haehae tonu mātau i te kiri nā ngā pānga mamaetanga ki runga i ā mātau ki roto i ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei, kāti! Waihona atu tēnei kōrero ki konei. E hari koa ana. Ā tae hoa ake nei ka puta mai ko te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire hei whakamana ki roto i Te Ture a Te Pākehā. Ki a tāua Te Māori, kia ū tonu ki tō tātou tikanga. Kia kaua tēnei Whare e haukoti nei i ngā āhuatanga, me ngā tikanga ā ō tātau marae, whānau, hapū, iwi, kāti, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[In regard to the Minister, I acknowledge him and all he has done to complete the circumstances that related to this bill and the bills that have been spoken about by this House during the weeks, months, and years just passed. The Minister talked about some of his officials to us, and I acknowledge them, the Crown officials, the current chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee—that is Tutehounuku Korako—and all of you the committee members. I compliment them because of the huge workload of the Minister, and now, the bills and contents within them will land upon the table of the Māori Affairs Committee.

As far as this bill is concerned, I heard that the supporters are there, in other words the majority! However, there are some complaints as well, contentions, some issues relating to our Māori people. This is about resources to disclose in Parliament House at this point in time. To me personally, I have been saying for a long time that issues concerning Māoridom should be left at the marae to be aired, sorted out, resolved, and settled. Enough, I commend all the people who have championed this bill that is before us for this second reading on this day.

And so I saw, shall I say, genealogies in the bill that are to determine some groups, contingents, and high-ranking clusters to administer some of the operations relating to the Whanganui River. There is one part, then, about the well-being of the entire length of the river from the mountain to the sea, and that has to be a good thing!

As I was reading the bill’s genealogies it declares in this bill that Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole, the protocol is to be Tupua, Te Pou Tupua is its human face, Te Karewao is an advisory group, Te Heke Ngahuru is a strategy document, Te Kōpuka is a collaborative strategy group to Te Awa Tupua, and the eel trap cage of the Whanganui River would really need to be untangled. All these genealogies are in the bill. I acknowledge that situation and caution us in terms of the tasks ahead of us in the future. These genealogies mentioned here by the bill are similar to the flow of the water. The swirls in it and the bends that interrupt the flow of the water, there then are those alerts! So that, then, is mine to us on this day.

I turn to that other matter that the Minister talked to us about in regard to custom and Māoridom enshrined in a Pākehā law and in Treaty settlement bills just past. I have said for a long time, yes, indeed, we must be vigilant. If we are to pack ourselves and our original aspects of Māoridom into the laws of Pākehā, perhaps the canoe might nosedive, might overturn. Perhaps the customs of our forefathers might become compromised.

I recall another bill from within me of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and assert that only the descendants alone of this ancestor will be permitted to have an interest to this bill. I will not agree to that kind of situation that denies an opportunity for adopted children, situations that are seen on a daily basis within families and communities of the home. Those are the precautions in this bill as I was reading its contents and all of its commentaries.

Now I will comment about the situation concerning this river thing and assert, according to this bill, yes, it is a person. It has a living and a life force, and, yes, I endorse that kind of circumstance and agree totally. My challenge to this House and to the Minister is what about the fresh water throughout? Within me and Pita Paraone, and I from back home, Whatitiri is the mountain, Pororotī is the settlement, and of the ancestral forefathers, Te Waipuna is ours. That is where the contention in regard to this matter about the water is. I said to the Minister and all his officials that the river is living and it has a life force. Now then, we of that place have had an interest in this swimming pool of our ancestral waters for a very long time, but enough. For me personally, there is much to be done ahead of us in the future.

The good thing about this bill is that it has started! The bill is starting to take heed of what our parents are saying. It is starting to take into account the work of our ancestral forefathers, their aspirations; to ensure that it continues to flourish, and that it continues to develop the conversations for our forthcoming generations. Enough! In the remaining minutes left to me, I truly commend you, Wanganui, and your desire to work collaboratively in regards to this matter before the House with the Minister Chris Finlayson. I acknowledge you in regard to that other kind of situation. In regard to that, the Minister talked to us about it, but regardless of how wonderful the words in the bill were, gee, mate, it was still hurtful to Māoridom and the tribes of Whanganui.

We continue to cut up into the skin as a consequence of the effects of the pain we experienced over the many, many years, but enough! Leave this contribution here. I am absolutely stoked. The third reading will arrive soon enough to mandate it as a Pākehā Act. To you and me as a Māori, we must continue to commit ourselves to our custom. We must never let this House compromise aspects and customs that pertain to our marae, whānau, hapū, and iwi. Enough; acknowledgments and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēna koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, tēnā rā koutou ngā pouwaitaka o tō tātou matua tupuna. E Whanganui iwi, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. E mihi nei, e tangi nei koutou rā tōku whakahirahira, koutou tūmanako ake nei, koutou e hāpai nei, ka mihi, ka mihi. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, ā, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to you collectively, the blossoms of our ancestral forefather. To you, the tribes of Whanganui, welcome to the Parliament, come hither. I extol you, as you collectively grieve my prominence, in terms of your aspirations to come and responsibilities you will shoulder, for which I commend and admire you. Allow them, the dead, to remain there among themselves while we remain here, I therefore applaud you all.]

It is indeed a privilege to speak in the second reading of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. This is indeed ground-breaking legislation. Particularly under the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, this is an outstanding piece of work. I want to acknowledge all of those, too, who have been responsible for getting the bill to this particular place in time, and particularly those officials from both sides—from the Office of Treaty Settlements and from Whanganui iwi—and then also, in particular, the submitters.

In the second reading—and particularly when you look at the passage of this bill, from the introduction to the House to the first reading, and then, from the first reading, it being handed down to the Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, the Māori Affairs Committee. I also want to acknowledge my members, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, on the excellent work to date that they have done on this very, very unique bill. The second reading is always an important part of the journey of a bill, and particularly to talk through the various sorts of submissions and the changes that have been recommended to the House on this particular bill.

I was actually at a conference last week speaking about Treaty settlements and the process that we have, which is a very, very unique process. It does not happen anywhere else in the world. One particular thing that I spoke about was this bill, because what this bill actually does is create a living thing—the river, Te Awa Tupua. That was really amazing in the interest that I got on this—on how this particular piece of legislation is actually about the creation of an individual and how that actual individual really does enhance, physically, spiritually, commercially, all of those who actually live along its course. So it is about, indeed, the uniqueness of this bill and this legislation.

I commend the Whanganui iwi on this particular sort of bill itself, because the bill was not easy, and it is still not easy because it is actually about a balance of competing interests of multiple iwi and all of those who are actually the users of the river. Just to look at sort of the way that some of those submissions were actually presented—and thank you to all the Whanganui iwi and, particularly, the mandated group, because when we went to Whanganui, actually, it was an excellent sort of opportunity for us to hear kanohi ki te kanohi from all of the submitters.

In this case, I think the important thing is just to go through some of the sort of various groups that submitted and the ones that actually really stood out. It was the influence of their submissions why, actually, we relooked at the bill and made some suggested changes.

I think the first one is really around the fact that—I want to talk about the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board. It raised concerns that this settlement of historical claims regarding the Whanganui River could compromise its future settlement opportunities. These concerns were similar to a claim filed with the Waitangi Tribunal, which stated that the Whanganui River settlement covers offshoots of the river that are exclusively managed by Ngāti Maniapoto, which were included without Maniapoto’s mandate. We are advised that this bill explicitly states it does not settle Ngāti Maniapoto’s historical claims to the river. Furthermore, Ngāti Maniapoto’s future redress will be subject to an overlapping claims process that will involve Whanganui iwi. That is the first one.

The next one was Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru, and it raised similar concerns. The Whanganui River settlement does not settle the historical claims of Ngāti Maru, and their role as an iwi with interests in the river is recognised in the ongoing management of Te Awa Tupua.

The other one that was very interesting—and it brings this value of kanohi ki te kanohi—was the Uenuku Charitable Trust, which expressed concerns that the Waikune Prison site, currently held within the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) land bank and leased to the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board would not be available for its future settlements. We have been advised that the prison is Crown land held in the LINZ land bank, and will, therefore, be available for future Treaty settlements, subject to negotiation with the Crown and overlapping claims processes.

There were also some concerns that have led to us recommending changes to the bill as originally introduced. Concerns were raised about the reference to some groups as hapū groups who consider themselves to be iwi in right. I think that particular one has been addressed, and to make sure that it is clear, we recommended the amendment of the state that Uenuku and Ngāti Hauā may be viewed as iwi within the broader context of the Whanganui iwi.

So that is some of the work that we have done to date. It will be interesting to move through to the Committee stage. But, finally, it is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. E mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa Whanganui iwi. Ngā mihi.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, tēnā koutou; tēnei te tū ake ki te tāpiri aku mihi ki ērā i whakatau i a koutou i raro i te korowai o te ngākaunui mō tēnei tutukitanga, nō reira, Whanganui iwi, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[And so acknowledgments to you collectively; I rise to add my tributes to those who paid homage to you under the cloak of dedication for this achievement, therefore, to you, the Whanganui tribes, I commend you all.]

I have listened carefully to the contributions today and, in fact, since this particular bill was introduced into the House. It got me reflecting on a number of things. As I am not from the area, I had to go back to when my relationship began with the Whanganui River and how it enriched the way in which I thought about my own river.

I went back—what—some 18 years to my first opportunity to experience Te Awa Whanganui. Successive visits since then really started to embed within me—when you hear the saying “Ko te awa ko au; ko au te awa.”—the sense in which a people have a relationship to their river as an entity and, more than that, as an ancestor and, more than that, as a being that infuses an essence and a perspective in the way that you look at things.

In this term there have been two settlements that have been innovative in their approach to understanding how we might think about our relationship to each other and to the environment—our care of duty, of stewardship, and of kaitiakitanga towards nature. Those two settlements are Te Urewera and this one, Te Awa Tupua. Why? Because to a large degree, infused within the components of the settlements, they take two very simple notions, rākau in the Urewera settlement and wai in this settlement, and urge a different conversation towards the way in which we think about our custodial care for our environment.

That is really exciting for settlements yet to come. I would hope that a number of iwi who are yet to settle take on board the approach and the type of conversation—the new conversation space—that is being created by these two settlements. It is exciting and it is an opportunity. It urges people into a different space of responsibility vis-à-vis rights, and it urges people to take a longer-term view towards what it is going to take to ensure that our custodial care and obligations as kaitiaki will ultimately benefit our taiao—and, yes, our people, but our taiao—so that future generations can reap the rewards of that.

With that said, I thought about certain aspects of the settlement, and I actually used the opportunity as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee to again comment on the innovation of Treaty settlements at a water symposium. I commented on, alongside our own Waikato River settlement, this one as well, in particular, as a model for the future. Why? Because Te Pou Tupua—the relationship between the Crown and Whanganui iwi to have custodial care for the river, like a baby, to have a conversation about its well-being like you would a child, to think about the external environment within which that child is being raised, the broader community, and to think about the relationships that need to be integrated into a long-term solution for looking after the care and well-being of this child or this tupuna, mokopuna or tupuna. I thought Te Pou Tupua, whose genesis has been in Whanganui, provided an interesting and innovative framework. I think it provides a common point of approach that many can draw from. Again, having a strategic plan is something that is important to Te Kōpuka, the collaborative group that oversees the way in which that strategic plan can be implemented, and I thought that was excellent.

When we think about the river as a system, those in the upper reaches, the mid reaches, and the lower reaches having Te Karewao as a group of locally selected elected representatives will ensure that they can take a catchment-based approach to the health and well-being of those very unique parts of the river system. Again, it is very innovative and provides a different space for conversation, engages the community at a wide point, and absolutely ensures that the iwi are front-row centre to shaping the conversation around Te Awa Tupua. Those values and attributes are really important to keep in mind when you are thinking about decisions going forward.

All of these things, hinged together, were actually very difficult to understand at a select committee level, when we read this settlement on paper. But when we heard the submission and the intent, we started to piece together, I guess, a picture of what is trying to be achieved. I think we have only slithered across the top of the intent, and there is something much deeper here that is happening. We will see the fruits of this, I believe, in the next 5 to 10 years. And if this contribution is what it is intended to be, it will shape a very different conversation between Crown and iwi, between local government and iwi, between the rest of the community and iwi, and, actually, between the corporate sector and iwi. Why? Because the custodial care of our taiao is very important.

I commend the work of the negotiators. It is evident, certainly from what I can see, that the stewardship of care by which those guiding hands of those who have gone past is infused in everything that this settlement represents. I am sure they will be very proud of the negotiators who have carried this settlement forward. The Minister made mention of Briar Gordon. She is exceptional when it comes to putting together the legal framework in a way that stays as close as possible to the intent of the deed of settlement. We have had many times when we have ourselves tried to kind of find our way through the conversation with Briar Gordon as a member of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and she has brought the total sum of her experience into every Treaty settlement that she passes her hand over, with the first being the Ngāi Tahu settlement, right up until this settlement, 20 years later. So you have had the very best parliamentary counsel legal drafter have hands on this legislation. It may not be everything, but it is certainly an advancement—again, I can only comment from a place of knowing—on previous river settlements, into a very innovative space.

I also want to thank Minister Chris Finlayson. You have been overly ambitious, in my view, in terms of pushing us on time frame. The chair of our select committee will attest to the fact that we have tried to keep working through these settlements in a respectful manner and in a conscientious manner, but in a manner that will help iwi like Whanganui get on with it—get on with it, and do what you need to do to make this all that you need it to be.

The chair of our select committee commented on a couple of concerns, but can I have on the record again—because it abuts the area that I represent—the interests of the upper catchment. At the end of the day, words cannot supplement relationships, but what is very evident about this settlement is that it absolutely relies on relationships. So although iwi like Maniapoto may be concerned, I hope that the undertakings of the settlement will allay some of their greatest concerns, but I know—I know—that what will actually make this work in a way that has mutual advantages will be the relationships. And for this settlement, ultimately, to be effective, it is all about practical, living relationships to give effect to the intent of the legislation, which is to have a stewardship of care for a most beautiful river in our country. Nō reira, he iti tāku, me kī kia tuitui ki ngā kōrero i mua i ō tātou aroaro i tēnei rangi ki a tātou katoa.

[Therefore, my contribution is a brief one, let us say, as a thread on to the contributions before us all on this day.]

I am very humbled to be able to support the second reading of this settlement. Tēnā koutou.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E rere kau ana mai Te Awa nui, mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The big river flows from the National Park to the sea, I am the river and the river is me.]

I begin my korero with this whakataukī because I have a short story to tell about my journey to understanding what that whakataukī has meant to me. Many in the House will not know this, but I went to school in Whanganui, at Whanganui Girls’ College. I was in Wickham House at the time, and Wickham House was in the city and the college was over the river. For 4 years I walked over that bridge to school and back from school, and to sports, and back to the hostel. I remember looking down into the river as I crossed it—into the murky depths of the river; it seemed like that all the time—but back then I did not realise the deep connection that I had to it. Years later, my work career brought me back to Whanganui, working first for the district health board and then for Taumata Hauora Trust and Ngā Tai O Te Awa. This time I arrived back in Whanganui understanding my whakapapa, but trying to understand whereabouts I fitted into Te Awa o Whanganui.

I want to mention here a man whom I came to respect and admire—albeit some of his ways left me scratching my head a bit, as I am sure I did the same to him at times—and his name is John Maihi and he sits up there in the gallery today. I say kia ora to you, John, because you helped me see what Whanganui whānau had been seeing most of their lives, which I did not see: a regard for a body of water that flowed from the mountain to the sea, just like the blood that courses through the whānau veins, like the air they breathe, like the life they live and have lived. The stories John shared with me, without him ever realising it, told me many things that my Whanganui w’ānau went through to retain their rights to their awa. From times when w’ānau lived solely from the spoils the river produced to the way the river was used and abused over time to the settlement along its banks, where the door to the whare faced the river, and to today, the infamous annual te Tira Hoe Waka.

My realisation of the meaning of those words in that whakataukī came when I stood on the river bank at Pūtiki Marae a few years ago at 5 a.m. listening to the karanga and the karakia starting puanga, and I began to understand what those words “Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au” really meant. For me, they represent the past, the present, and the future. They are life itself. The karanga that morning crystallised why the awa holds so much mana and, in many ways, why I have not yet journeyed along this sacred taonga of Whanganui.

Today is only the second reading of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill, but for me it is more than that. It is an acknowledgment that Whanganui iwi were right all along. This is not about giving back; it is about righting history of what has always been. Tēnā koutou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koutou katoa e Te Whare. I just want to lend the Green Party’s support to the second reading of this bill. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so. I want to follow on from what Nanaia was talking about. This is another bill that gives the environment legal status, a legal identity, and it is—in New Zealand at least—a new and very innovative way of considering how the environment needs to be protected and restored, that it is entitled to its own integrity, and what the role of the community is in protecting that environment. I think it is a really exciting development in New Zealand law.

It is the right thing to do, for a start, but what it does is it clearly puts humans in our rightful place in terms of the environment. We are not the masters of our environment; we are its servants. We are a hundred percent dependent on the health and the nurturing that the natural environment gives us for our lives and for our futures. So there really is no alternative. It simply is not negotiable to protect our natural environment for ourselves and for our kids and for our grandkids.

The legislation that we see here today and the previous legislation we have had in the House has given us an opportunity to think about how to give the environment legal status, a set of legal rights, and the obligation and responsibility on the people around that environment to then work for its protection and restoration. It accepts that the environment—whether we are talking about a river or a forest or a lake or something bigger—is entitled to its own integrity for its own sake. That is at the core of iwi Māori, of tikanga Māori, and it is at the core of the environmental movement, and these things are finding their way together.

It is a lesson though that has been taught to the dominant culture—Pākehā culture—by indigenous people. We are seeing, all across the world, indigenous communities that are standing up for the protection and restoration of the environment, using all the tools they have—their bodies, their words, the law, and the systems—to demonstrate that value. It is kaitiakitanga in our case; other values described in other ways in other indigenous people’s cases. We are using all of the tools we have to put that value into our structures so that there is a sense of legitimacy, particularly to Pākehā communities—dominant cultures—around the world.

Bolivia is a very interesting example. In 2010 it passed a law for the rights of mother Earth, and that law, from that cultural point of view, put the Earth—the planet, and all its resources—at the forefront of its law. Those rights include the right of the Earth and its resources to life, the rights of water, the rights of the air, the rights of restoration, and the right of the environment to be free from contamination. So it was a huge commitment to the protection of the environment in a legal way—in a constitutional way, in Bolivia. It gave the country a framework on which it would make all the decisions—its social decisions, its economic decisions, its resource use decisions—and it put right at the heart of all those decisions the right of the environment to be protected and restored.

We have been seeing over the last few months another fight around water: “Water is Life” and the Standing Rock protests that we have been seeing in North Dakota in the US. Again, that is the indigenous people of that country actually putting their lives, their bodies and their lives, on the line for the water resources that are their life. From their point of view, water is not just a resource to be used, to be exploited, to be bottled and sold off; water is life, water is us. I think there is a real connection between iwi Māori and Whanganui, the iwi of this legislation, and the Standing Rock conception about water, because both treat water as the protection of our whakapapa, as the carrier of our whakapapa into the future. So there is this huge network of indigenous communities around the world, of which iwi Māori are a part, that recognises how critical water is not just to us but to the future of the planet and to the future of our communities.

The iwi here have worked with the Government to put that principle into this legislation, and I think that is enormously empowering. It is really exciting for all of us who believe that our natural resources deserve protection and restoration in their own right. So I want to congratulate and thank the iwi of Whanganui for taking this approach to the protection of this awa. As I said, I think, in the first reading, my grandma is from there—she was born and raised in Jerusalem; she is buried at Pūtiki—Piupiu Turei, so I have spent, especially as a kid, lots and lots of time up around there with my dad, Richard. So there is that real sense of pride at how the Whanganui iwi have used the law to put this core tikanga Māori value at the forefront of the work that they are doing.

I am not going to belabour the second reading. It will be good for us to get on and be able to complete this legislation as soon as we can, but I think it is a very, very exciting development in law. I think the next step though—I would just say this—is that this concept moves away from just being in Treaty settlements, that it moves away from just being part of iwi Māori / hapū Māori approach to the protection of natural resources, and becomes a much more dominant tool in the protection of our environment. There is no reason why we cannot use this principle of giving our environment legal protection, legal status, as a way of giving us the structure in which we make decisions about water use, for example, which will continue to be a major issue for iwi Māori but also for New Zealanders in general.

Giving legal protection to our atmosphere would be one way that we could have a structure, a framework, for thinking about the pollution, particularly the climate pollution, that this country engages in and the increasing climate pollution that we engage in. This is not a tool that should be isolated only to Treaty settlements or isolated only to the work of iwi Māori. It is actually a tool that we should be using much more broadly to protect our environment. These are lessons that Pākehā Governments all around the world should be taking from indigenous people all around the world. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā anō koe, tēnā anō hoki tātou e hui tahi nei i roto i Te Whare. Te mea tuatahi, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e taku tuakana a Peeni ki a koutou o Whanganui i haere mai nei ki te mātakitaki mai i te urunga mai te whakaturengia o tā koutou pire e pā ana ki Te Awa o Whanganui. Nā reira, nau mai, haere mai! Waihotia ngā kōrero mō rātou ahakoa kei te maumahara ana au i a Te Atawhai i te wā e ora ana, ko ia tetahi i tōna wā, e hiahia ana kia kite mai i te hua i puāwai i te rā nei, nō reira tēnā koutou.

[And so thank you once again, and also to us all gathered here together in the House. The first thing is to endorse the tributes accorded by my senior kin Peeni to you collectively of Whanganui who came here to observe the entry of your bill about the Whanganui River into the ratification process, so welcome, come hither! Leave the contributions about them aside, despite the recollections I have about Te Atawhai when she was alive. She was one who really wanted to see the outcome that blossomed on this day, therefore congratulations to you collectively.]

Can I say that it is a real pleasure to be part of the debate regarding this particular bill because it is a unique one. It sets out a new framework that encapsulates Māori tikanga, and I think that, if I can recall correctly, my comments during either the first or second reading it seemed that the law was catching up with Māori tikanga, and this bill certainly reflects that.

My tuakana also made reference to the whakapapa that this bill is all about. It mentions a number of entities all with Māori names and all with specific duties towards the maintenance not only of the health but of the mana of the Whanganui River, and I think that that contributes to the uniqueness of this bill.

The bill recognises that Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole and comprises the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating all its physical and metaphysical elements, and it is declared a legal person with all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person. So therein is the point of difference from all those other earlier attempts as to how we address such an important issue as the maintenance and the health of the river, and other elements of our environment. The earlier speaker from the Greens certainly touched on that, and I certainly would share those same sentiments.

The bill refers to Te Pā Auroa, which is the Te Awa Tupua framework and comprises the legal status of Te Awa Tupua and the intrinsic values that represent the essence of Te Awa Tupua. It also refers to Tupua te Kawa—the intrinsic values that represent the essence of Te Awa Tupua, and included in these important values is the iconic maxim: Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au. I can recall as a young person when I first heard that saying, and I thought just how relevant it was in terms of connecting the person who said that to the river, which is essentially a major part in that person’s life, and that saying certainly reflects that.

One of the most unique things of any settlement that has ever come before this House is the distinction and the acceptance of those things Māori. As many of us know, within the Māori world everything has a wairua, everything has a mauri, and everything has a spirit. Bearing those concepts in mind, this bill actually recognises those values, and I think that is one of the things that makes it so unique, and I think it is a real privilege to be part of this process today and see such intrinsic values come into legislation. It also sets up a framework for future legislation. My tuakana Peeni made reference to one of our rivers in the north, and we both know that there are several rivers that are very important to us. When we are able to reach that point of settlement, we will certainly use this as a blueprint for protecting our own rivers.

I think one of the other unique things about it is that it accommodates the partnership. It is not just restricted to iwi Māori. It includes and embraces all those who have a connection with the river, who also have a responsibility for its care and maintenance. We talk about the health of our rivers and this settlement bill provides the financial base from which the respective groups, particularly, Te Awa Tupua, can start on this journey of cleaning up and maintaining the health of the river.

I do not think there is too much more that I can say other than to acknowledge those from the iwi who have been responsible to have this concept, first of all, recognised by the Crown and to have it included in this settlement. I just want to mihi to them. Nā reira koutou mā, kore mimiti te kōrero mō koutou ēngari, taku kōrero whakamutunga haere mai, haere, haere i runga i te rangimārie o tō tātou Matua Nui-i-Te Rangi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Therefore to you collectively, a tribute for you will never end, but my concluding statement to you collectively is welcome, journey on, and go forth upon the peacefulness of our Almighty Father in Heaven; congratulations and well done to you collectively, and to us once again.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, otirā, ki Te Whare, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou, āe, he maha ngā kōrero kua puta mai i ngā rangi kua hipa atu i ngā tūru e wātea nei. Kei hea rā te hunga o Pāremata nei ki te whakarongo ki tēnei kōrero, tēnei kōrero hōhonu nei, tēnei kōrero tuatahi nei? Well, kei konei a Māori mā, wētahi o ō tātou whanaunga o tēnā, o tēnā o ngā pāti, heoi anō rā, koirā te wero ki a tātau katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time to the House, here is a congratulatory remark to you collectively, and, yes, many comments have been made over the past days about these empty chairs. Where, indeed, are the ones of this Parliament to listen to this address of depth, and a first-time one? Well, Māori members are here, some of our relations of that one of the parties and of that one of the parties are here, but, once again, that is the challenge, indeed, for us all!]

To understand who maintains the mana of the Whanganui River, one must return to its source to hear the ancient first. Pūhaina a Tongariro e rere nei i W’anganui, ko te wai inu tēnā o Ruatipua inu ai!

[Tongariro erupted where W’anganui flows. That is the water that Ruatipua consumes!]

The wisdom of the river is found through two primary tūpuna, Ruatipua and Whairangi-i-Te Whare Toka. Ko ngā wai inuinu o Ruatipua ēnā, ngā manga iti, ngā manga nui e honohono kau ana, ka hono, ka tupu hei awa, hei Awa Tupua.

[Those are the drinking waters of Ruatipua, small and large streams that join together to become a river as Awa Tupua.]

For many New Zealanders, a connection to our rivers is a treasured part of our identity. It reminds us of summers gone by, of recreation and pleasure, and of childhood memories and adventures on rapids. But to the people who fill our galleries today, there is something more. A river runs through their veins: a river of whakapapa, of sacred significance, a river that brings together the genealogies and legacies of a people who have swum, washed, played, prayed, dived, paddled, and travelled Te Awa Tupua as the central artery of their tribal heart.

The people are drawn to the river to cleanse and purify, to bless and heal, or to give strength and resolve: “For Te Kuia Peeti, while growing up [she stated that] the river was ‘the life-blood of my life’.” It had a wairua, and she contended that it healed, purified, and sustained. Today, then, marks a significant day, because it recognises the significance of the dual-ownership of this spiritual connection to Te Awa Tupua, an ownership located in two key principles. “Te Awa Tupua mai i te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa—an integrated … view of Te Awa Tupua … from the mountains to the sea;” and “Ko au ko te awa, ko te awa ko au—the health and wellbeing of the Whanganui River is intrinsically interconnected with the health and wellbeing of [its] people.”

E ngā iwi o Whanganui, we are truly making history. This will be the first time that this nation has, by legal definition, as has been stated here today, recognised the Whanganui River, Te Awa Tupua, as a legal identity, reflecting an indivisible and living whole. That history we make today reflects the courage of those champions of the Wai 167 claim: the late Hikaia Amohia, the late Sir Archie John Te Atawhai Taiaroa, the late Joan Akapita, and many more—Rangipō Metekīngi and others, but if I go into them, I will be here all day, so: others! But it is a history that stretches way beyond any other settlement or legislation that has ever been heard in this House. The Wai 167 claim tabled on 14 October 1990 was the latest in over a century of petition and submission, dating back to 1887. That is right—1887, when Paora Tūtaawha and 66 others petitioned the Parliament of that day, complaining that steamers were destroying their fisheries and their eel weirs. The legacy is with us today in every word.

The whakataukī that I spoke of earlier refers to the drinking fonts of Ruatipua, the small and the large streams that flow into one another and continue to link and swell until the river is formed, Te Awa Tupua. At the second reading, one can truly feel the river flowing through the submissions we heard and the synergy created by many voices coming together as one. One of the truly awe-inspiring features of this bill is to bring so many often contrary voices into one unified chorus. We heard from the mayors and chief executives of the Whanganui, Ruapehu, and Stratford district councils and the Horizons Regional Council. They told us of a willingness of local government to work collaboratively with the Whanganui iwi and the Crown, with each other, and with the communities, giving effect to the bill collectively. They welcomed the innovative nature of this legislation, particularly the river as an entity, represented by Te Pou Tupua.

The Quaker settlement told us that it was truly significant to have formal recognition of the Whanganui iwi’s world view at the heart of the Awa Tupua bill. It encouraged us to remember the promises of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it set out an expectation of coexistence, living together, acknowledging our differences but sitting together side by side, the foundation of a plural society. We were told that “We now have the opportunity to make this shared quest a lived reality.” The New Zealand Conservation Authority promoted the value system of Te Awa Tupua as being able to inform and strengthen the collaborative management of the national park as a living cultural landscape. Ngāti Rangi Trust celebrated the fact that once enacted into law, Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill, in its view, set a new global benchmark for the restoration and preservation of significant waterways. It concluded that it looked forward to supporting the Whanganui iwi relations in the years ahead, to bring life to the aspirations of the many pakeke who have fought for the awa over countless generations.

Even Horizons Regional Council told the Māori Affairs Committee that its relationship with the Whanganui iwi has ebbed and flowed over time. As the settlement of the Whanganui River has developed, so, too, has their relationship. It told us that the bill speaks to the aspirations not only of Whanganui iwi but also of the communities that interconnect with the river and provide strong mechanisms to assure the mana of Te Awa Tupua is upheld and enhanced. These are but a selection of the 30 or so multiple voices singing as one to advance Te Pire o Te Awa Tupua (mō Te Whakataunga o Ngā Kerēme e pā ana ki Te Awa o Whanganui).

It is important that we acknowledge the sacrifice and suffering of Whanganui iwi, who have endured the sustained misuse and exploitation of their ancestral waters over several decades. Fourteen Whanganui chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi in May 1840, and since that time the Crown has systematically undermined the Whanganui River, the Whanganui iwi, and their interests in the management and use of the river. History will never be erased or forgotten. But today marks a significant turn in the tide of a new opportunity, a change to the lens through which people interact with, and make decisions affecting, Te Awa Tupua. The kuia Julie Ranginui told the Tribunal in 1994: “The river for me is like my mother, is like my father. The river is my grandfather, my grandmother, it’s my tupuna.”

In schedule 8 of the bill, we are introduced to more than 240 identified ripo, or rapids, their names protected and maintained by the hapū associated with each of those ripo between Taumarunui and the mouth of the river. We recall the connections to some 143 marae, once vibrant communities that shaped the river life and a life still cherished by their descendants. The people of the awa hold that each ripo of the Whanganui River is inhabited by kaitiaki that are particular to each hapū. The iwi and the hapū of the Whanganui look to these kaitiaki for guidance in times of joy, despair, and uncertainty for guidance and insight that they can provide—a sacred lineage, an intimate connection between the river and its people.

In the 23 seconds I have left, I just want to quote this from Niko Tangaroa: “The river and the land and its people are inseparable. And so if one is affected, the other is affected also. … The river is the heartbeat, the pulse of our people. Without the Awa we are nothing, and therefore I am reminded of the korero when one of our elders Taitoko Tawhiri said of the river, if the awa dies, we die as a people. Ka mate Te Awa, ka mate tatou Te Iwi.” We have a chance to restore Te Awa Tupua to its life-giving essence and, in doing so, to gift back to the people their rightful obligations and responsibilities to the river that runs through their veins. The Māori Party is proud and, indeed, humbled to support this bill, respecting their vision, their generosity, and their remarkable persistence. We commend this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o Te Whare nei. Tuatahi, ka tuku i taku mihi atu ki aku whanaunga kua tae mai ki Te Whare nei, nō reira, e ngā whānau, me ngā hapū o Whanganui, tēnei ahau e whakapiri taku mihi ki te tokorua nei ki a Metiria me Jo, ko mātou nei nō Te Awa o Whanganui. E tuku mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā, nō reira, tēnā koutou!

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, at the same time, to all of us members of this House. In the first instance, I extend an acknowledgment to my relatives who have arrived at this House, and so, to the families and hapū of Whanganui, I extend my tribute and include this pair, Metiria and Jo, as we three are indeed from the Whanganui River. We acknowledge you collectively who have arrived here on this day, therefore, greetings!]

It is an honour to speak on the second reading of Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. As we have heard from all of the previous speakers, this is a unique settlement. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations used the word “innovative”. I also want to add my voice to what “Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua” means to me. It is a rare occasion when the imperatives of the iwi and the people take precedence over the imperatives of the law and the Crown. I think this is an excellent example of how the imperatives of who we are, of Te Awa o Whanganui, have taken precedence in shaping the framework for us to move forward. So I join with others in the House who have congratulated all of the negotiators, both the iwi negotiators and the Crown negotiators, on bringing this framework together. I totally look forward to the day when this framework is fully operational. I think it is only then that we will see the fruits of the many days, hours, months, and years of work that have gone into creating this framework. I congratulate everyone who has been part of the development of this framework.

I want to join with the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in acknowledging all of the submitters who had their voices heard during the select committee process. It can be a challenging process for those who are in support of the bill and those who have some reservations about it, but, in the end, I think it is a very good process to go through, and through it we, the Māori Affairs Committee, have made some recommendations to make the bill even better than it was, and to make some corrections as well. That is the fine-tuning part of the process, if you like.

I totally agree with the words of Tutehounuku Korako that he has presented to the House today. I think that the opportunities within this piece of legislation are huge for the future of the people of Whanganui, but, more importantly, for Te Awa o Whanganui. We have heard many quotes about the relationship between the people and the awa, and in the whakataukī that was first mentioned by Jo Hayes, and I join her in those sentiments. E rere kau mai Te Awa Nui, mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

[The great river flows directly from the National Park to the sea, I am the river and the river is me.]

Hearing those words in this House so many times reminds me of being back at home, and I think of all of the tamariki and mokopuna who will inherit a new legacy, which this bill creates. It is a legacy enshrined in legislation, but also already existed and now recognised in law, so no one can ever touch that again. I am supremely happy about that. I think what the House should do is pass this bill as soon as possible.

I do want to mention the comments—I am probably going to get into trouble for this, but I will say it anyway—about empty chairs in the House. I just want to explain that the processes and everything about Parliament continues on during extended hours. The reason for that is so that we can get these bills through the House in the most expeditious way that we can. The alternative to having a full room would be considerable delay—and I am talking at least 3 months per reading.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, more.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Or more, as my colleague has said. So I just want to put some perspective there. It is not being disrespectful to the iwi; it is merely saying that the processes of Parliament continue on, including the Māori Affairs Committee, which this week has heard other bills before it. It would be lovely to have the room full for these bills. But I would just like to say, on behalf of all Labour members, that all of the members of the Labour Party fully support this bill and are pleased to do so, and we commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Waiata

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 was a substantial reform to alcohol laws in New Zealand, and this bill makes three amendments to that Act to clarify and to correct issues that have arisen over the last few years as it has been put in practice. The amendments are minor, the amendments are non-controversial, and they do not change the policy intent of the reforms passed in 2012. They are very useful amendments to the bill and they will strengthen the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

In particular, the bill changes rules around the single alcohol areas in supermarkets, and I think it will have substantial benefits. It is the main amendment, under this bill, and it allows for the display of non-alcoholic or low-alcohol beer, wine, or mead in a single alcohol area of supermarkets or grocery stores. Under the wording of the current Act, supermarkets and grocery stores cannot place low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beverages in the same areas as regular strength alcoholic beverages. This bill corrects that unintended consequence because it does make sense that these low- and non-alcohol substitutes for beer and wine are in the same place as regular strength alcoholic beverages. The single alcohol area is where most people will intuitively look for these products, and so this amendment makes sense for supermarkets, for grocery stores, and for the general public.

The second amendment in the bill is to clarify that a company can hold an alcohol licence under the Act. It is not explicit in the Act at the moment that a company can hold that licence, and it was causing some confusion. So it is good to see that the bill can clarify that issue by including “company” in the relevant section of the Act.

Finally, another useful amendment was added to the Act during the select committee stage, and I do want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for reporting back on this bill. When the committee did that, it reported back a change to the Act’s definition of “working day”. That is in response to the Mondayisation of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. This change means that “working day” no longer includes the Monday after the weekend containing Waitangi Day or Anzac Day. This amendment will make the Act consistent with the changes made to the Holidays Act in 2013.

I was very pleased to see that there has been unanimous support for this bill received from the parties as it has passed through the process, and I hope again that Parliament will support the bill going forward. These are very minor, they are non-controversial, and they are useful changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. I wish that these can come into force as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): The issue of alcohol is an issue that many throughout our communities are concerned about. It is an issue that local governments have to deal with on a regular basis. It is an issue that our police force spends significant amounts of time on. It is also an issue that prevails in our health system on a regular basis. In communities such as Māngere—and no doubt there will be many others throughout New Zealand—this is an issue that we have to consistently contend with and look at trying to prevent the harms that it causes. Although we support this particular bill, and the Minister Nicky Wagner is correct in saying that the changes to the bill are minor and technical, the reality is that the 2013 bill, which this Government passed, did not include or address the issues that were raised in the report commissioned by Geoffrey Palmer at the time.

The bill basically addresses two things. It now provides for those drinks considered to be low-alcohol—under 1.15 percent ethanol by weight—to be included in the single alcohol spot in supermarkets. That is the first change. The second one is the clarity. In many ways it now just expands the ability for any company to have an on-licence or an off-licence to sell alcohol. That is a concern for those of us who have to deal with the harms that are caused, because, on the one hand, we all know in this House that we have got to reduce the harm that alcohol causes in our communities, but, on the other hand, in that particular clause, we are pandering to and allowing the proliferation and sale of alcohol.

I want to refer to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, which made a joint submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee. They asked the committee to make some significant changes to clauses 4 and 5. In respect of clause 5, their submission was that if we are going to display low- or no-alcohol beverages that are sold as beer or wine in the area where alcoholic beverages are displayed, we should ensure that those same products are not then being sold outside that confined area. It seems to me, and to our local boards, that this is an opening that allows for the proliferation again of the ability for products to be displayed where alcoholic beverages would normally not be displayed.

In respect of clause 4, the second point that this submission raised, which still raises a concern for many, is that when we allow companies—any companies—to be able to get an on- or off-licence, we do not know who the directors of those particular companies are. If certain directors were involved in previous enterprises where that licence was removed from them, that information ought to be made public so that those who are making the decision as to whether the company ought to have an on- or off-licence can make this determination, with the full and complete information that is available to them. For our local boards that made the presentation to the committee, it just seemed that allowing for any company to have an off- or on-licence, without disclosure as to whether the directors of that company were involved in previous companies whose licences were revoked, does not provide full and complete information to the general public or to the committees that are determining whether the company ought to get the licence or not.

Another aspect that I want to raise is that, although the Labour Party members support the bill because of its technical changes that are necessary, there are other areas that we included in our minority report that we would like to raise and will continue to raise with this Government as areas of unfinished business. The first area is the lack of minimum pricing. It is clear that inexpensive, readily available alcohol is one of the key drivers of alcohol harm, yet the Government, in this opportunity, has failed to address it. The international evidence is unambiguous. Price is one of the most effective policies to combat alcohol-related harm. We understand, from the research and work that others in the communities do, that the problem is the reduced-price bottles of wine or the mixed drinks. We understand that there was an intention by a previous Minister, not this Minister, that the targeted alcohol reforms would address cheap alcohol. However, he failed to do that during his time. We think that the Government’s failure to stop retailers selling cheap alcohol, at rock-bottom prices, is standing in the way of genuine alcohol law reform.

The second part that I want to again raise with this House is the availability of alcohol. There is a connection—an evidence-based connection; well researched—between accessibility and harm. It does not need a rocket scientist to know the harm that alcohol causes. One only needs to turn up late on a Friday night or a Saturday night at the emergency centres of any of our hospitals and you will see the evidence there. I do not believe—we do not believe—that that is being addressed at all by the legislation. People purchasing alcohol late in the evening, we know, are more likely to have been drinking beforehand. They may not have the judgment and self-control required to make good decisions. There are strong suggestions by many community groups, who have to deal with the carnage on our streets, that there should be a default closing hour, and they believe strongly that 11 a.m. the next morning is just the wrong hour. We have got concerns about the inconsistency of trading hours. The advertising and sponsorship—94 percent of the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee did say that this is an area that they ought to address.

As I said, on this side of the House, on the face of it, the bill is very short and it is technical. It makes those two minor changes in terms of allowing companies to sell low-alcohol or non-alcohol beverages together with other alcoholic beverages, and it clarifies that companies—any company—can have a licence for on- or off-licence sales, and yet there are those particular issues that communities such as mine have to deal with.

I just want to, finally, mention an attempt by local communities such as Māngere-Otāhuhu, such as Otara-Papatoetoe to highlight that we are not doing enough—not just this Government but Parliament as a whole—to address the harm that is alcohol-related. These two local boards, in particular, have reviewed their existing bans throughout that community, and as of late last year decided to publicise that there are now 38 areas where the consumption of alcohol has been banned. Those areas were a direct result of input from police, from individuals, and from community groups that are having to deal with the harm. So I just want to relay that to the House.

While we are congratulating ourselves on passing this bill with its minor technical changes, the reality is that we have still got a long way to go in addressing the harm that alcohol causes, not only to the individuals but to our families, to our communities as a whole, and that there is a cost to that harm that, eventually, all of us have to pay for. I would not be shouting at the rooftops to say that this is a wonderful bill. We support it because they are technical changes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, your time has expired.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, I do agree with the member Su’a William Sio in one respect: this is not a wonderful bill. There are plenty of other bills passed by this Parliament, put forward by the Government, that are wonderful. This is a sensible, technical bill that makes, basically, remedial changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and, of course, the major change is to allow low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beer, wine, and mead products to be displayed in a single area of the supermarket. We have this bizarre situation at the moment where these products, which people are increasingly turning to as an alternative to traditional alcohol products—particularly beer—have to be displayed not in the single area of the supermarket that Parliament legislated for in the 2012 alcohol and liquor reforms, but in, basically, the fruit juice and fizzy drinks section of the supermarket. We have this absurd situation where people go to the single alcohol section in order to pick up a 12-pack or a bottle of wine, expecting to find alternative products that they may wish to drink instead, but they cannot find them.

So, of course, what the bill does is essentially clear up that piece of—I guess you would say it was an oversight in the 2012 legislation. Although, interestingly, the popularity of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic products has really rapidly increased in the last 3 or 4 years. You do see people at parties and social events increasingly choosing those low-alcohol products as a substitute, and that is a good thing. We had a bit of a debate at the Justice and Electoral Committee about whether or not these products were substitutive or additive, which is a sort of complicated way of asking: do people drink less full-alcohol products, or do they just drink more generally? Do they have a few full-alcohol beers and then also drink low-alcohol beers at the same time, thus increasing their overall alcohol consumption?

There was a view put forward by one of the lobby groups in this space, Alcohol Healthwatch, that it is actually additive—that people actually end up drinking more. No evidence was actually provided for that, as is often the way with Alcohol Healthwatch, but that was the view that was put forward. Actually, the sales figures and the market research shows that people are actually substituting full-alcohol products for low-alcohol products, and certainly that is the anecdotal experience that I see around the place.

This is a sensible bill. Su’a William Sio talked about how it does not go far enough, and we heard a tired refrain that we often hear from the Labour members about how they are going to tackle our drinking culture and how we need to do more—we need to change default closing hours, we need to tackle our drinking culture, and things like that. But I just make the simple point, which I have made in this House on a few occasions, that it is actually important to have a look at facts in this situation. There is a lot of rhetoric about drinking culture in New Zealand. There is a lot of rhetoric and words said about binge drinking, in particular. The actual fact is that alcohol consumption in New Zealand is at a 30-year low. The actual fact is that youth drinking is declining, and has been for 10 years. The actual fact is that drink-drinking and youth drink-driving are down. The number of young people who say they binge drink, or drink to excess, is declining, and has been for 10 years.

So before we get a little bit carried away with the rhetoric about how we need to impose even more Draconian restrictions on alcohol, it is helpful to actually start with the facts. Actually, that is often not what members opposite do in this House, particularly the Labour Party.

This is not some wonderful piece of transformative, world-changing legislation. The members of the press gallery would like Parliament to consider those pieces of legislation constantly, on a 24/7 basis, but, actually, sometimes the work of parliamentarians is making those necessary and technical changes to the law that will make a difference, and this bill essentially clears up an oversight in the 2012 legislation. I think it is going to have unanimous support going through the House. It certainly did going through the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to speak in the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Just as the member Mr Bishop leaves the House, I note that he spoke about the facts around the drinking culture. Well, what we do know is that just recently, you may be aware, there was a thing called Crate Day. I am sure Mr Bishop was one who trotted down to the local liquor outlet and grabbed himself, probably, a crate of Tui—he looks like a Tui man. It is probably one of the lighter beers out on the market. I have no doubt Mr Bishop would have trotted down to the liquor store, grabbed a crate, and probably joined some friends, who are probably in the same age bracket, and he would have indulged in a crate of beer.

Now, post - Crate Day, hospitals across the country and in Waikato and in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau have made it very clear that Crate Day has to go and that outlets who advertise a day such as Crate Day are actually causing great harm in communities. They are saying that the A & E departments in Waikato Hospital and in Auckland Hospital were inundated with people of all ages who were completely intoxicated, who had to have their stomachs pumped, and who were at serious risk of choking on their own vomit. Some of them got violent towards the staff in the A & E who were there to help them: doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers and officers.

This is the culture we are talking about. If the member wants to refer to some facts, I suggest he listens to those who are on the front line of dealing with some of these issues, and not simply read a report on the internet.

But we do rise on this side of the House to support this bill. The member mentioned some of the—his word was “oversight”. Actually, the words we want to use on this side of the House are “unintended consequences”. We seem to have been coming back into the House rather regularly of late and mentioning unintended consequences, which is to the point that my esteemed colleague here, Mr Su’a William Sio, mentioned about the need to make legislation that is transformative—that actually goes all the way, or goes further than what this bill intends to do—to making sure that we protect our communities, while also offering the opportunity for our members of the community to enjoy an alcoholic beverage.

One of the parts of this bill actually says that, without overexposing the general public to alcoholic beverages in the aisle at your local supermarket, this particular bill will allow them all to be situated in the one place, and that is common sense. That just makes sense to us. Why would you walk down with your child—I have got young children myself. I will be holding their hand, walking down the aisle, and if they are not dragging me to the confectionary aisle, they certainly spot out the drinks, and they know what they are. So this kind of bill is a common-sense, smart way forward.

Does it address all of the harms of alcohol? Probably not. It does tidy up, however, some of the unintended consequences, or, in Mr Bishop’s word, “oversights”—oversights from the 2012 legislation. The rest is technical amendments. We understand that. The definition of a “working day”—Minister Nicky Wagner, in the place of Minister Amy Adams, described that well enough. We will not labour that point. But what it does do is it actually just tidies up, and makes it very clear for the general public, the definition of the “working day”.

My colleague Mr Su’a William Sio talked about the ability to gain an on-licence, an off-licence, or a special licence. The bill talks about the ability of those companies that qualify under the Companies Act to be able to do that—they are able to gain an on-licence or an off-licence. I mentioned in earlier debates on this particular bill how I understand that, but if you look at the kinds of companies that qualify under that particular Act, one has to wonder, well, why we would allow such open access to having an on-licence or an off-licence? We have made that point throughout the process of this bill. I understand that for the purposes of holding events and the supply of alcohol to consumers—I understand that. But let us be very clear that in opening it up to the Companies Act, what we are actually saying is that in that definition we are allowing a wide range of companies access to this, and that is of concern to me. That is of concern to me.

It touches on some of the points that Mr Su’a William Sio spoke about with regard to our vulnerable communities. Companies in vulnerable communities are exploiting a bill such as this by gaining an on-licence, or applying for an on-licence or an off-licence, to supply alcohol, and that is a concern. That is a concern in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, across the electorates of my colleagues here, and, of course, in the great township of Onehunga. But that is a concern, and my fear is that when we are able to have a review at some point in time—hopefully, in the near future—we will look back at this to see what kinds of companies have applied for these types of licences, and we will be able to get some data that will inform us. And I am going to pick that it is going to actually tell us that maybe we gave far too much room here—far too much scope for companies to be able to apply for those.

So those are some of the concerns we have. Of course we do support this bill. Like I said, they are sensible steps forward—we understand that—and we are more than happy to support the bill into legislation. But, in my final closing point, I do just want to express our disappointment at the fact that this particular bill just does not go quite far enough. It does not meet the recommendations of the experts and those who are able to crunch the data, whom Mr Bishop referred to, who made clear recommendations that a major overhaul and reform was needed in this particular space. But for now, in the third reading, we will support this bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to now, at this third reading stage, talk about this bill. It has been a full process that we have been through and, I think, a good one to highlight a particular issue that was causing a number of companies, particularly supermarkets, some concern. On this side of the House, and I think right around the House, we are concerned about reducing alcohol-related harm. So to make it more difficult, as it was under the old regime or the current regime, for people to be able to find low-alcohol beverages in places like supermarkets really did not make any sense at all.

If we look at the original intent of what it is that we are trying to do by having supermarkets sell low-alcohol products, this bill absolutely supports the intent, which is that people will be able to more easily walk into the supermarket, find a low-alcohol product that is similar to a product they might normally have consumed that had higher levels of alcohol in it, and therefore be able to drive more safely when going home—and, actually, other alcohol-related harm would be reduced.

We did hear from a number of different people along the way. We had some good, robust discussions about things like what mead is. We had some interesting conversations about how it is that we should define low alcohol. But I think we arrived at the right spot where we said, actually, if somebody is marketing something as beer or wine or mead, it should sit alongside those other alcoholic beverages that people associate with those products. This is a sensible bill. It is great that it has had such widespread support from around the House. I look forward to it coming into legislation shortly. Thank you

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We have supported it the whole way. It is not a controversial bill at all. It makes perfect sense. At the moment, low-alcohol beverages, be they beer, wine, or other low-alcohol beverages, are not able to be sold in the part of the supermarket where wine and beer are sold. They had to be placed in the same area as non-alcoholic beverages, which was quite strange and a bit of an oversight. So this bill just fixes that problem. Overall, the Green Party’s goal would be to minimise the harm caused by overconsumption of alcohol, and, to that end, we would like to see more done in the area of minimum price, restrictions on advertising, and availability.

The sudden appearance of low-alcohol beverages on the market is probably a good thing. As one of my colleagues who spoke previously said, the evidence does seem to be that people are replacing full-alcohol beverages with low-alcohol beverages. I know that last year the Auckland City Limits Music Festival, a music festival at the end of summer, actually ran the festival entirely with low-alcohol beverages. So it worked with a local company in New Zealand that developed a whole range of low-alcohol cocktails—I guess you would say they were somewhere between cocktails and mocktails—and low-alcohol beers and wines. Apparently that was quite a success because it gave people the opportunity to enjoy themselves, to have a tasty beverage, but without the excessive consumption of alcohol, which we all know can lead to so much harm here in New Zealand. The Green Party is supporting the bill. Cheers.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill is supported by New Zealand First. We support the intent of the amendments to allow for low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beer, wine, and mead to be displayed in the single area of supermarkets, and we support the retailer having the discretion as to whether they will do that or not.

But it is not what is in the bill that is a problem here; it is what is not in the bill that is really where the problem is. It is what the Government has chosen to leave out that is what disappoints us in New Zealand First. In fact, when I look back, the Government’s reforms needed around alcohol over the last few years have been a monumental failure. The drinking culture among the young still remains a problem; nothing much is being done about that. And we think that the failure to return the age for purchasing alcohol to 20 years in the principal Act is a major mistake. We think it would have led to less consumption by that age group, and it is a great disappointment that that opportunity was not taken in the principal Act when it was passed a couple of years ago.

In addition to that, the Government has failed to deal with the problem drinks, the ready-to-drink alcopops that are so popular, especially among young people. We know that those are particularly harmful, firstly because of the large quantities that can be consumed so easily and so quickly by young people, and also because the sugar levels are very high in those particular drinks. They are very harmful drinks because of the alcohol and because of the sugar levels. And these drinks have to have at least 5 percent alcohol and in many cases, actually, a lot higher than that. They are treated by young people, in particular, as though they are soft drinks, even though they are actually quite potent alcoholic drinks.

They are pushed by the retailers and priced to sell and are sold in large quantities. They are condemned by the experts, many of them, and they are condemned also by the Law Commission as one of the drinks that are the most potentially harmful to our young people. They actually should be prohibited, but this whole area has not even been touched by the Government; instead, it passes this quite satisfactory but really very ineffective piece of legislation, when there are so many more important things to do.

The big commercial interests in alcohol will be very pleased with what the Government has done because they have got what they want, but it has been at the expense of a worsening alcohol culture in New Zealand. And yet, at the same time, we have country pubs that are being forced to close, one after the other, all around the country. And we have sports clubs and similar organisations that cannot get licences to run events. Both the country pub and those organisations were not the source of significant problems with alcohol in New Zealand, and yet they are the organisations that are actually suffering. I think that the closure of country pubs around the country is a really sad thing to see.

Those country pubs and other organisations that wish to sell liquor, such as at race meetings and events of that kind, are really finding it very, very difficult to make a living. And yet, they provided a very important social facility. The fact that they are closing all around the country is because of the legislation brought in by this Government, and it has been without any actual benefit in terms of lowering the rate of consumption of alcohol in New Zealand or trying to avoid any of the worst excesses of the use of alcohol in the country. In fact, when country pubs have to close and other organisations cannot continue to operate, it means more people drinking at home and there are other problems that arise as a result of that.

To make matters worse, there are far too many grog shops opening up around our communities in New Zealand; far too many of them. Also they are opening in some of the worst possible places: near schools, very close to—in fact, in—residential areas, and in other places where they should not be allowed. For some reason this has been generated as a result of the Government’s legislation, or its failure to adopt the correct kind of legislation in the country. We are seeing this problem being complained about by people and communities from one end of the country to the other, and yet the Government is doing nothing about that and instead is passing this relatively insignificant piece of legislation.

As far as New Zealand First is concerned, this particular bill is a common-sense bill. It allows supermarkets to place low-alcohol products in the single area reserved for that purpose and to do so at their discretion, thereby preserving the freedom of people to buy the products they want and to be able to find them conveniently in supermarkets. So, for that reason, New Zealand First has no difficulty in voting for the bill.

But, as I have said, the real tragedy here is that there are so many much more important issues concerning alcohol consumption in New Zealand that this Government should be attending to and is not even interested in, and instead we see this insignificant piece of legislation. What we need to see are the changes needed to prevent those closures of country pubs, to make it possible for organisations to get the licences they need in support of race meetings or other events, whatever they may be, and also to stop the torrent of new grog shops opening up in inappropriate locations across the country. Those are three of the most urgent problems that the Government should be looking at and bringing legislation to this House to deal with.

But, instead, what do we get? We get a piece of legislation dealing with where to display non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beverages in supermarkets. That is OK in itself but really a pretty pathetic effort as far as this Government is concerned. We in New Zealand First hope that when a new Government comes along next year—and I am sure there will be one—one of its first priorities will be to review the alcohol legislation and to start doing some of the things that really need to be done to improve the situation as far as alcohol consumption is concerned in New Zealand. So New Zealand First will vote for this bill, but with a great deal of disappointment.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. It is a pity that that member who has just been speaking, Denis O’Rourke, has learnt the political art of the manufacturing of crisis, because if that member had actually been round long enough to have been part of the process—and I was outside of Parliament when the process started, around the consultation, over a long period of time, that engaged with communities up and down the country around the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill that was put in place.

In those consultations, and that member may not have been part of that, what communities were able to gain through this legislation—OK, he is blaming the Government—was the ability and the provision to allow communities to engage and consult with the local territorial authorities around the configuration of those by-laws, the opening and closing of on- and off-licences, and all the sales in the areas around schools and other forms of facilities in the community. Communities get to choose. And if that member had been part of that, he would realise that the so-called chaos he has talked about does not exist to the degree that he has made out.

So I want to say to the public out there who are listening to this, that this is a very simple bill. If the member stuck to the issue—which is simply this: it gives discretion to supermarkets to be able to ensure that the supply of alcohol, whether it be a low-alcohol beverage or even a non-alcoholic beverage, would be placed in one single place. So, therefore, it would be the consumer’s choice as to what they would choose. This is not the murmurings of the member to create so-called political chaos and crisis, when it does not exist.

Out of this has come a bill that has seen support from key stakeholders that this is critical. It is a minor bill, a minor amendment, but it is important. When the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill did go through, we wanted to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. Well, there were; that has happened. This Government is simply ensuring that it remedies that, so it ensures that it is purpose-fit for discretion for supermarkets, so the consumer can choose. That is simply what it is doing; that is simply the cause and effect of this bill.

So I speak in support of this bill. It is good to see that it has widespread support right across the House, because we see this is a good bill. It is important. It is a minor change but an important one that, again, gives discretion to those who are not only providing and trading in the sale of alcoholic and low-alcoholic beverages but also to consumers in their choices. I commend this bill to the House.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Kia ora. I rise to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill, and it is very good to see the particular point that low-alcohol beverages will be able to be displayed alongside others. As said in the earlier readings, it is very interesting to see the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Seventh-Day Adventists, who are certainly opposed to the consumption of alcohol, there with industry wanting the same thing. So there is a lot of sense in that aspect to the improvements on this.

One concern that we have had in the Green Party around alcohol—and, of course, something a lot of us in the House here, across parties, are really concerned with—is the binge-drinking consumption of alcohol. There would be very few in here who do not drink something, but there are some who do not, I gather. The advertising of alcohol has really amplified it, particularly to young people, and has made it into such a desirable thing. It is encouraging it in many, many ways.

We believe that that was something it would have been good to see changed and reduced significantly. It is always difficult, when you have got local regional enterprises, like the wineries in my region, Marlborough, to say when you would advertise and when you would not. But the massive amount of TV coverage, the sponsorships, and things like that that are actually encouraging and misrepresenting alcohol as a very, very positive feature to be drunk in bulk has been a shame, and we really pay the consequences of it socially. So we would like that changed, but getting the low-alcohol option right next to the other ones, to normalise it for people who are drinking, is very, very good.

It has been enjoyable to see the move to people drinking less because of the driving laws and to see them looking for lower alcohol options at the pubs. I have said it before—at my local in Marlborough, the Grovetown, people are drinking a beer called, interestingly, Empathy. It is not sympathy but it is Empathy, and they find it a very palatable drop when it is there as a low-alcohol option when they want to have the socialisation that they would normally have in that situation. The Green Party supports this bill because of the positive features, and I am very happy to have spoken to this bill and to be supporting it. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading here today. This bill simply makes some minor changes to the existing Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and it is simply addressing technicalities that were causing some confusion for the licensing committees, for retailers, and for the general public.

There were 30 submissions received in response to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s work, all basically in support of this bill. During the select committee process, we also took the opportunity of making a minor amendment to the definition of “working day” so that it brought it into line with, and made it consistent with, the wording in the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Act 2013, which simply meant that the Monday following a weekend that Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fell on was also considered a holiday.

This is a very sensible and a very non-contentious piece of legislation. It does not change the policy intent of the original Act, and I commend it to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Labour supports the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill corrects certain minor and technical issues that have emerged since the passage of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act in 2012, so we are supportive of it. However, we do have a number of concerns. Our major concern is the failure of this bill to deal with a few different issues that are crucial to combatting the harm caused by alcohol in New Zealand.

The first is lack of minimum pricing. In its final report, the Law Commission stated that “We regard pricing policies as the central plank of any reform package aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm.” It is clear that inexpensive, readily available alcohol is one of the key drivers of alcohol harm, and yet the Government has failed to address this issue. The international evidence is unambiguous: price is one of the most effective policies to combat alcohol-related harm. John Key rejected an increase in excise tax as soon as the report was tabled. In saying this, the Prime Minister ignored all other mechanisms for addressing the price of very cheap alcohol. The problem, really, is the $5 bottles of wine. I was on the select committee that was considering the first lot of reforms, back in 2009 or 2010, and this issue came up in a number of submissions. So it is disappointing that here we have another opportunity to address it and the Government has failed to do so.

Another issue that is a major concern for us is the availability of alcohol. There is a connection—well researched and evidence-based—between accessibility and harm. Accessibility is about the convenience of the outlets, their hours of operation, and their prices. And although the Government has started to address hours and the proliferation of outlets, the problem of easier accessibility will not be solved until price is addressed.

Default closing times: people who are purchasing alcohol later in the evening are more likely to have been drinking beforehand and may not have the judgment and self-control required to make good decisions. This should warrant an earlier default closing hour than the proposed 11 o’clock.

We have concerns about the inconsistencies in trading hours and, therefore, availability between neighbouring communities, despite our firm belief that communities should have greater say with regard to the sale of alcohol. Our concerns are that there will be pockets of alcohol-related activity burdening certain communities more than others. I am in west Auckland, so we have more restrictions, with the Waitakere Licensing Trust having a major say in where outlets go. Actually, you can see a huge difference between what we have in west Auckland compared with, say, when you go to other parts of central Auckland or South Auckland, where outlets are just everywhere. Just having such a presence in our communities, surely—and we know this through the research—has an impact on the levels of drinking that take place.

As I said, we will be supporting this bill. It is just concerning that there are other issues that could have been addressed by the Government, but, again, we are in the position where it has chosen to ignore some of the big issues and has chosen not to take up some of the big recommendations that have been put before us, not just during the submission process for this bill but, actually, during the major reforms that took place a few years ago.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Acting Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I rise to take this call on behalf of my colleague the Hon Maggie Barry, who has overseen the development and the passage of this bill. It is a small but vital modernisation and expansion of the Wildlife Act, which is the principal piece of legislation that underpins the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the ability to protect our vulnerable native species. The powers of this Act have not been updated for 60 years, and they are no longer fit for modern purpose.

The threat that is posed by the smuggling, poaching, and hunting of our native species is something that we cannot overlook. It is very real, and there is a lucrative international black market, particularly of our spectacular native geckos, skinks, and other lizards. I think some of you will remember a very high-profile case where a German was caught leaving the country with more than 40 reptiles, geckos, and skinks hidden in his underpants. That drew a lot of attention to this topic. These smugglers particularly target young, pregnant female lizards, and that poses a direct threat to isolated groups or clumps of these species.

Over the last few years, not only have people smuggled but they have also killed really significant wildlife—whio, tūī, kereru, kea, kākā, shags, petrels, oystercatchers, herons; any of those. They have also tried to sell blue duck chick, egg, and eggs. Of course, it is not just people. People’s dogs have killed kiwi, gulls, and weka. These species are important to New Zealanders and therefore we need to amend this Act to make sure that we can take action in these circumstances.

I particularly would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has been very ably chaired by Scott Simpson. I think they all worked very hard to make sure that they put this bill through proper scrutiny.

I would like to state again, just for the record, that the amendment bill grants five new powers to warranted—warranted—DOC rangers. The first is the ability to take action to prevent an offence that is about to occur or is in progress. An example of that would be if a DOC ranger came across somebody in the middle of taking geckos, perhaps on a rocky outcrop in the middle of Central Otago, he or she can take action in a manner that is reasonable to the circumstances to stop it.

The second is to temporarily stop persons suspected of an offence, to allow investigation. At the moment rangers can stop and search vehicles, also vessels, bags, and other items in transit, but they cannot stop people from leaving the scene. They cannot stop them while they ensure they can get evidence of what has actually happened at that scene.

The third is to seize a broader range of evidence such as laptops, cameras, and mobile phones. The Act currently allows rangers to seize only a few types of evidence—if you think back 60 years, none of these things probably existed, and they do not cover modern technology such as mobile phones and laptops. These things are often absolutely vital to an investigation. They will now be empowered to seize any evidential material as defined in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012.

The fourth is to require the date of birth and proof of identification details from suspected offenders. As it stands, the Act allows rangers to require a name and address, but there is no provision to provide any proof of identity, and this is obviously open to abuse. Under section 66, as amended by clause 6 of the bill, rangers will be able to require proof of the date of birth, name, and address. Full-time fish and game rangers will also have this extension of powers, and they will now be able to require people to give their date of birth as well as their name and address. Failure to provide these details can result in a fine under the Wildlife Act not exceeding $100,000 or a year’s imprisonment.

The fifth amendment is that this bill grants the power to arrest, limited to serious offending against absolutely protected wildlife such as involving illegal hunting, killing, or export. Access to the power of arrest is limited to DOC’s small specialist team of enforcement officers. These are highly trained people. They are often former members of the police force, and they carry out the most serious investigations for the department. Officers from other Crown agencies such as the Police, Customs, and the Defence Force, who sometimes collaborate with DOC on joint operations, will also receive the power to arrest under the Wildlife Act as a result of this amendment.

Finally, the bill also modernises some of the anachronistic language within the Act such as the requirement that rangers can call on only males over the age 18 for assistance. It is well and truly time that that was changed.

I am pleased the bill has support across the House. I know that David Parker was disappointed in his bid to add a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) extending some of these powers to the honorary or volunteer fish and game officers. There is a very simple reason why we could not support that SOP. Honorary rangers are at arm’s length from the Government; they are not public servants and therefore they are not subject to the Public Service code of conduct, which binds DOC and other full-time Crown staff who are employed by the Crown. This is an important distinction, and it is the reason why we could not support that SOP from Mr Parker.

Despite that disappointment from the Opposition, I am pleased that we have attracted broad agreement for this bill. I think it is a good example of the parliamentary process working well. Once again I would like to commend the select committee and the DOC team who helped put this together and to see it through the House. I would also like to thank submitters for the work that they have put into this process.

As a result of this bill DOC’s heroic front-line staff will have the powers they need to deal with poachers, with smugglers, with illegal hunters, and with anyone else who seeks to take advantage of our natural heritage. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): In this third reading, I want to reiterate Labour’s support for this bill and to challenge the Minister on the Government’s refusal to accept a very good, pragmatic amendment from our colleague David Parker to allow honorary fish and game people to collect date of birth details.

You would think it was the end of the world, actually, to collect date of birth details to enable prosecution to take place should an offence have taken place. This would, in fact, help rangers. It is a practical amendment. The Government, in saying that it would not support the amendment because these people are at arm’s length from the Government is a whole lot of hogwash, because the extension of the power related only to the collection of date of birth details, to help and facilitate prosecution should an offence occur. Although I have heard the explanation given through the Committee stage and in the third reading in this House, it still beggars belief to think such an amendment has not been accepted by the Government.

With that said, the other matters in terms of the extension of powers to full-time rangers is something that is well overdue—60 years overdue, I understand, in terms of the Wildlife Act in particular. The way in which there is a limited power to arrest and the way that the committee considered these matters in line with the Search and Surveillance Act, I think, is practical. I know that this particular power would not really be used in a real way unless it was in conjunction with other surveillance activities undertaken, perhaps, by Customs or Police. I guess when people might read, on paper, that this is a power to arrest, and ask why a ranger would want this particular power, it is in conjunction with other activities. In so far as the smuggling and the illegal trading of wildlife species is concerned, often at the border is where the alert is raised, and you have to track something right through to the offence taking place in order for prosecution evidence to be collected.

I do not want to take too long on this third reading. We have made the point about David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper, identified that the extension of powers is well overdue. We would have to say, in looking at the capacity of the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate, and especially when you look at the regional conservancies and tracking the number of rangers from 2011 to 2015, and taking into account the restructuring that has taken place, it is clear that the capacity and the responsibility put on DOC rangers has increased over time with little investment in the department. In order for good legislation to be implemented, you need the capacity and capability within DOC to be able to carry out those tasks and, significantly, the support of voluntary organisations, honorary roles, and functions of groups like Fish and Game New Zealand. We support this bill to third reading.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a call in this third reading of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, sponsored by the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry. I listened carefully to the third reading speech of the Associate Minister of Conservation, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and I was delighted to hear her give what I thought was very appropriate praise and acknowledgment to the Department of Conservation (DOC) staff and officials who had helped us at the Local Government and Environment Committee as we went through this piece of legislation.

That the Department of Conservation staff are hugely committed to protecting and enhancing our natural environment goes without saying, but this is an area of the law that is due for an update. It is an area of the law that, actually, has not been addressed by this Parliament for nearly 60 years. Over that 60-year period, the focus and the intent of illegal smuggling, poaching, and stealing of our beautiful native creatures has actually changed quite dramatically. We now have a burgeoning, flourishing, and enormously profitable trade, internationally, in some of our most precious, most vulnerable, and most at-risk native creatures—the lizard is just one that comes to mind.

In an electorate like mine, in the beautiful Coromandel, where a very large part of the electorate is managed very competently by the DOC ministry and employees, I see, literally every day, examples of how dedicated those people are to our beautiful natural environment. So this piece of legislation extends the powers of those officers to actually intervene and intercept in situations where they see illegal acts taking place. That has not been the case in the past, under the principal legislation, which, as I mentioned, is almost 60 years old, so it is very appropriate that we update it.

I want to just make mention of a comment that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta made in her speech regarding David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper 243. What the committee actually did do in terms of Fish and Game was we extended, I think appropriately and correctly, the ability for rangers to be able to require proof of date of birth, name, and address. Full-time fish and game rangers have had that extension of power given to them as well. So the distinction here—and I think the point that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta missed—was that it was the volunteer personnel from Fish and Game to whom we have not extended that opportunity and right to require proof of date of birth, name, and address. So full-time fish and game personnel and officers have had that extension granted to them, and I think that is an appropriate course of action. I think that extending it further beyond that to what are, essentially, well-intentioned volunteers, is actually a step too far in terms of the appropriateness of what are quite significant powers to stop, to hold, and to arrest.

So it is about getting the balance right. I think this piece of legislation does get the balance right. I think that the select committee has done very good work, and I want to commend the work of my colleagues from across the House on this bill. They worked assiduously to get a good bill out of the select committee in terms of it being a better bill. So this is a small but really important piece of legislation in terms of helping to protect our native species from the poachers, from the smugglers, and from those who seek to profit illegally at the expense of our beautiful and unique native creatures. It is my very great pleasure to commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am really pleased to support the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill, and I want to acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat, Scott Simpson, and thank him for the considerate way in which he chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the outgoing Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, and say that even though we obviously have serious political differences, he has led our country with dignity, and I wish him and his family the very best in his retirement, or into whatever role he transitions from here. I know that any of us in this House lose a lot of family time, and none as much as the Prime Minister, so I hope that he is able to catch up on some of that time with his family.

We have got a lot of big issues facing our country. We know that we have a serious funding shortfall in health. We know that we have got the same in education. We know that our police are feeling really stretched. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister is able to get her or his head around those issues and prise some money out of the Minister of Finance so that we can start properly supporting the people who do so much amazing public service for our country.

The member Scott Simpson quite rightly acknowledged the amazing contribution that the staff of the Department of Conservation (DOC) make in so many areas, and I would certainly add my voice to that acknowledgment, and my thanks. DOC is significantly under-resourced for the work that it is already empowered to do by legislation—required to do, actually. The amount of land that it is able to oversee as our guardian and supervisor has diminished significantly over the last 5 years, because in many areas you just cannot do more with less, and that is what the Government has continued to ask of every Government department and agency.

Although I am supporting this legislation, because it is sensible to update legislation that is well over 60 years old, and look at what current powers should be given to public servants or honorary rangers, as we have debated in relation to the fish and game rangers, none of the contribution from the Minister or the Associate Minister has given any commitment at all to adding additional resources to the Department of Conservation, which would marry up with the additional work that we are requiring it to do. So this bill gives it additional powers. That means it will have more work to do. It should get funded for it. It cannot continue to do more with less, and that is a very strong concern that I have in relation to this legislation.

So the new power that the DOC rangers are getting is the power to seize a wider range of evidence. That is clearly needed. Smarter applications are being made in order to commit crimes in the conservation area, and we should empower those whom we have given the guardianship of those responsibilities to, the legal power, to use every tool available. The rangers will now have the power to stop a person; they currently do not have that. They are able to stop vehicles, they are able to stop vessels, and they are able to take bags, but they are not actually able to stop people. So that is an addition that I think is sensible. They are allowed to stop those people for the time that it would take to do an investigation. So, obviously, we have entrusted our Public Service to not take advantage of the powers that we are giving them. We know that they do not want to detain people for no good reason, but it is specified in the legislation that it is to allow investigation of suspected crimes.

We are enabling the rangers to seize items such as laptops, mobile phones, and cameras. When the original legislation was passed in 1953 we did not have laptops and mobiles phones; now we just laugh at the thought of being without them. We did have cameras, but not the modern sort that we have now, including on mobile phones. So we are giving the rangers the power to seize things that they actually need to seize, which were not envisaged because they were not even made at the time of the original legislation.

We require suspected offenders to provide identification details, and that is where Labour and other parties—New Zealand First and the Greens—differ, I think, with the National Government. It was a very sensible amendment that David Parker proposed during the Committee stage, and I regret that—you know, I think that it was just because it was from an Opposition member that the Government declined it, and that is stupid politics, actually. I am always of the view that regardless of what party people are from, you should be able to look at the proposal they are making and determine on a basis of fact whether it is a good idea or not.

Currently, to enable a successful prosecution under this legislation, a person’s date of birth must be provided, otherwise the case cannot be successful. We give all the other powers to the fish and game honorary rangers, but we do not provide them with the one power that was proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper, and that is the power to require somebody to provide the honorary ranger with their date of birth. So prosecutions under this legislation will fail because that critical bit of information is not required to be provided. So if a person just says “No, I’m not going to provide it to you.”, the honorary ranger has no backing of the law to ensure that that person complies with what they would have to comply with if it was a DOC ranger, and therefore the prosecution would be successful. I think it was a foolish decline of the proposal. I actually think the select committee should have picked up that error and amended it. At that stage it did not do that, so that was a slight failing in the select committee process, then. It declined to take up that opportunity during the Committee stage, so the third reading, for all the support it is going to get, is not giving our Parliament as good a bill as it should.

I just want to comment on the earlier contribution that I made in relation to the stress that DOC workers are under. We know that DOC employees do amazing work for our country. We know that they are working in partnership with many corporations, many other Government departments and agencies, and thousands of volunteers throughout the country. Everywhere we look around New Zealand, we see groups of people who just care about their local area and their community and do good things, often under the leadership of DOC workers. DOC would not be able to survive and do the work that it does without that partnership with volunteers. So as well as commending the DOC staff, I also want to commend the organisations that sponsor them—they get good kudos out of it, but so they should, actually; they are putting good money into the department when the Government has refused to do it—and, of course, also the volunteers who do so much not just in this area but in many other areas as well.

I know that many academics and people outside the political process have raised concerns about the additional stress on the Department of Conservation and the lack of funding. In 2009 we had 803 DOC rangers in New Zealand; today there are only 637. That is a significant reduction in the amount of front-line conservation staff whom we are expecting to do this work.

In 2009 the DOC budget was cut by $46 million. That is a huge cut in a baseline that was already pretty marginal, actually. You know, they got by, but we require it to do so much under statute and then the National Government cuts its budget. In each of the successive years there have been cuts to the budget. There was significant restructuring of the department, which proved to be a major disaster, actually. There was a lot of centralisation of the activities of the Department of Conservation, which, although it gained some efficiencies, undermines the partnership that Department of Conservation staff must have with local communities in order to generate that trust and shared vision, which provides us with the volunteers whom I mentioned earlier. DOC staff deserve to be better recognised by this Parliament, but that recognition needs to be backed up by the funds that they need to do the job.

So here we are in the third reading giving the DOC rangers the additional powers that they need to do their job well, and I just call on the Minister, whoever the Minister of Conservation is next week—there will probably be a new Minister—to call on whoever is the Minister of Finance. And who knows whether it is going to be a new finance Minister or not. It is quite hard to pick at the moment. But I call on both of those Ministers to back this legislation up with funding so that DOC staff can do their work properly resourced.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi a te whanauka o Te Waka o Te Moana-nui-ā-Kiwa. Ngā mihi.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you all throughout this House. I, this kin who belongs to the canoe of the great ocean of Kiwa, salute you. Congratulations.]

I just want to take a brief call to reiterate what others have said. This is a very sensible bill and I am glad it has revealed widespread support in the House.

We are very fortunate in New Zealand to have such wide expanses of preserved wilderness that remain as habitats for our native wildlife. We also owe a lot to previous generations of politicians, who have ensured the ongoing protection of these areas through the creation of national parks and other conservation areas, and indeed through the work that has been done on breeding programmes, eradicating pests, and protecting our remaining species.

We can also be grateful for the work that the Department of Conservation (DOC) and also its rangers do to maintain and protect our precious conservation areas and native species on a day-to-day basis. So it is appropriate that we should pass this bill that we have in front of us here today and to update the powers of our dedicated DOC rangers and ensure that they can deal appropriately with offenders who could cause harm to protected wildlife.

I think it is somewhat perplexing as well that, in a country that values our native species and natural areas so highly, we need to be dealing with the issue of people who would cause harm to those areas and also to our wildlife. However, we have to face the fact that this is a real threat to our wildlife, and this bill takes the appropriate steps to deal with that threat. On that note, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): The Green Party is really pleased to be supporting this Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill. We have a biodiversity crisis, with over 800 of New Zealand’s precious and unique species listed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) as being at high risk of extinction. Our native wildlife needs all the protections that it can get. So we are supporting this bill because it gives extra enforcement powers to DOC rangers.

I would just like to echo the comments that have been made by many previous speakers honouring the commitment and dedication of DOC rangers, many of whom do face, sadly, unacceptable levels of abuse while going about their daily work protecting our unique and precious wildlife.

But the bill ignores the elephant in the room that other speakers have spoken about, which is the under-resourcing and underfunding of DOC. It is stating the obvious that if you do not have enough rangers on the ground monitoring and checking what is going on, then all the enforcement powers in the world are not going to make a difference, because there simply is not anyone on the ground there to do anything about the offences or witness them. We know that smuggling is occurring. We know that smugglers are not getting apprehended, and it is going to take far more to protect our native wildlife then chucking a handful of extra enforcement powers at DOC. We have to increase the number of rangers on the ground as well, and that means significantly increasing funding for DOC.

Let us be clear. DOC’s budget has gone down by an average of about $55 million each year since National came into power in 2008. We are very aware of multiple cases across the country where DOC is not fulfilling its responsibility because it is so cash-strapped. We have seen massive job losses and, worst of all, DOC ranger numbers have dropped significantly. How can DOC ensure that wildlife is protected when the number of rangers has dropped? There has been a cut of over 40 rangers in the last 5 years. What this means is that DOC is increasingly reliant on volunteers and private funding to do its core work of protecting our precious species. This is the wrong way round. Volunteer work and private funding should be the icing on the cake to ensure that wildlife flourishes. It should not be what is needed just to save them from the brink of extinction, and that is what is happening.

The Green Party is completely committed to restoring and increasing DOC funding as the first step towards ensuring that our native species thrive, because without these sufficient numbers on the ground our wildlife is suffering. In addition to restoring DOC funding, we will implement a taonga levy, a levy on tourists entering the country, which will help fund the predator pest control programme and make the much-hyped goal of a predator-free New Zealand a reality.

It is also apparent that we need a much wider review of the Wildlife Act than just simply increasing extra powers to rangers. As my colleague Eugenie Sage has mentioned previously, it is hugely frustrating that there is no protection in the Wildlife Act or any of the statutes for any of our native freshwater species. It is a serious failing when you consider how vulnerable our native species are, with 74 percent of native fish species facing extinction, and four of the five main whitebait species. So you have the bizarre situation where we have legal protection for introduced species but none for our native fish species. It is hugely disappointing that the Government has failed to close this gap to ensure legal protection for our native freshwater species.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Wednesday)