Tuesday, 13 December 2016

TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2016

TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Child Poverty—Level, Target Setting Policy, and Condition of Homes

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with Children’s Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft that the level of child poverty means “this is not the New Zealand I grew up in nor is it the New Zealand most of us want”; if so, what responsibility does he take as Prime Minister for his Government’s record?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): We do not want children growing up in persistent deprivation. I am proud of the steps the Government has already taken, including raising benefits by $25 per week for the first time in 40 years—something not done by the previous Labour Government. Alongside raising incomes, we are focusing on dealing with the complex dysfunction that traps families in long-term low incomes.

Andrew Little: Why are there more children living in poverty today than 8 years ago, when National took office?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member’s assertion.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the New Zealand Government publishes the most comprehensive measures of income of all developed countries in the world. The most recent information is up to 2014, which is prior to changes in free doctors visits for under-13s, the hardship package that was introduced under this Government, and other measures that we are taking for smarter support for vulnerable families.

Andrew Little: Why, after 8 years, has his Government not set targets to reduce income poverty and material deprivation amongst New Zealand children?

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, we have.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have. We have set quite specific targets in respect of all those factors that create the circumstances of persistent deprivation—that is, reduction in recidivism rates, reduction in long-term welfare dependency, and reductions in rheumatic fever. We have insulated 300,000 homes to improve the standard of housing and reduce poor housing, and, as I have said, we have increased incomes for families on benefits for the first time in 40 years.

Andrew Little: Is it acceptable to him that, according to the Child Poverty Monitor report, 110,000 Kiwi kids live in houses with severe damp or mould problems?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course that is not acceptable; the question is what steps should be taken to deal with it. This Government has insulated 300,000 such houses, and now runs much more focused systems for dealing with those children who show signs of ill health because of the quality of their housing.

Andrew Little: How much money over the last 8 years has his Government taken out of Housing New Zealand in dividends, while Emma-Lita Bourne got sick and died in a cold, mouldy State house?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member misunderstands exactly how Housing New Zealand’s finances work, but when tenants are experiencing ill health because of the standard of those State houses, money is not a barrier to fixing them. All such incidents are meant to be dealt with by Housing New Zealand within a short amount of time precisely because of the ill effects on the tenants.

David Seymour: Is not the real problem with housing and poverty the fact that New Zealanders produce half as many homes per capita as we did in the 1970s?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member puts his finger on the nub of the issue. Misguided planning laws over the last 10 or 20 years have meant that our cities have not been allowed to grow, and that has helped to push up the price of housing and has made it less likely that good-quality, lower-cost housing is built in our cities.

Andrew Little: Will he back my bill to make it illegal to rent out damp, mouldy, unhealthy homes, or does he think it is OK for slum landlords to exploit poor families and make kids sick?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is already the law, in fact, that you cannot rent out a home that is going to be bad for someone’s health.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To the Minister, is it not a fact that our parliamentary colleague from Epsom has stumbled on it—that we are not building nearly enough houses as we were in the 1970s and that we got mass immigration, which he has allowed in, in the 1990s and the 2000s?

Hon Members: Who’s the question to?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Who was the question to?

Mr SPEAKER: Did the Prime Minister not hear the question? I can have it repeated.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I think I did. It is the case that there have been fewer houses built per 100,000 people in New Zealand in the last 10 or 15 years, because the planning laws have been designed to stop that happening. As for immigration, the National-led Government stands proudly open to trade, investment, and migration.

Andrew Little: After 8 years of rising child poverty on his watch, will he sign up to Andrew Becroft’s target of reducing child poverty by 10 percent in the next year and take immediate steps to get there, or are we going to continue to hear empty words, just like we did from his predecessor?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Since 2012 we have published a set of quite focused targets aimed at dealing with the social dysfunction that traps families in the combination of welfare dependency, criminal recidivism, low education levels, and child abuse. The data about that is more detailed and more transparent than in pretty much any other developed country, and the Government is acting on that information—in many cases, family by family, because that is the only way to change their lives. Signing up to a target does not change their lives.

Metiria Turei: Does he accept the finding of the Children’s Commissioner’s report that on average 28 New Zealand children die each year of a poverty-related condition—each of those years being when National has been in Government?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen the detail of that. The Child Poverty Monitor takes information from the Government’s annual report on the state of incomes and households across New Zealand. But I think both the Labour and Green parties grossly oversimplify this issue. If it was just a matter of income, there would be no child poverty, because incomes are higher than they were. The hard bit we are dealing with in child poverty is the social dysfunction that has been there for 20 or 30 years, and this Government is addressing that in a more focused, thorough, and transparent way than any previous Government.

David Seymour: Is it not also related that one in five of the 60,000 children born in New Zealand every year is born into a family dependent on benefits?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that is roughly the case. Of more concern is that about one in 100 of these children is born into households where there is criminal offending, child abuse, violence, and long-term welfare dependency. We are closely focused on working with those families to break what are long-term cycles of deprivation.

Metiria Turei: What is the point of his Government’s interventions if not one of them has saved a single one of those children’s lives?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just do not agree with the member. I mean, there have been quite sophisticated advances in, for instance, interventions around rheumatic fever, where the rate of diagnosis of rheumatic fever has halved in the last 3 years, precisely because of excellent work done by the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Development. The rate of substantiated child abuse, which was rising, has flattened out. Those measures, among many others, may well have saved lives.

Metiria Turei: So how many families in 2017 does he expect will have to bury their children who have died because of poverty-related illness?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would hope none. I would hope none because it would be a tragedy for any family to bury their child. But what I do know is that billions of dollars have been spent ineffectively in the last 20 to 30 years because of following the recipe that that member would advocate, which is to throw money at the problem. This Government is doing a much smarter job of supporting our vulnerable families, and, of course, we have a long way to go.

Economy—Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Fiscal Strategy

2. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the strength of the New Zealand economy?

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, Mr Speaker—could you advise the House whether you have been advised of any change in warrants from the finance Minister that we have had up until today to today? Mr English is, as far as we know, still the finance Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You will be aware that post events that saw the change in leadership earlier this week, the Hon Bill English resigned as Minister of Finance, and, therefore, Minister Joyce is Acting Minister of Finance. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Anticipating that the point may be raised, I did source the ministerial list dated 12 December. Mr English has relinquished the finance portfolio, and at this stage the Hon Steven Joyce is the Acting Minister of Finance. [Interruption] Order! For the benefit of the member, if I refer him then to Speaker’s ruling 192/7, he will see that, indeed, the Acting Minister must now answer question No. 2.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): On Friday Moody’s reaffirmed our Aaa stable rating and the strength of the New Zealand economy. Moody’s issuer comment references last week’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) release, which supports its view that New Zealand’s public finances are very strong and highlights the importance of ongoing expenditure restraint in ensuring a sound financial position. Moody’s also notes New Zealand’s track record of policy predictability and effectiveness and the Government’s ability to implement policies and reforms that foster economic growth. Finally, Moody’s forecasts a smooth political transition with a continuation of the policies that have created this strong economic position.

Jami-Lee Ross: What is the economic outlook according to last week’s forecast from Treasury?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week’s half-year update confirms a strengthening outlook for the New Zealand economy. Real GDP growth is expected to average around 3 percent over the next 5 years, unemployment is forecast to fall to 4.3 percent, and another 150,000 jobs are forecast to be created over the 4-year period, on top of the 200,000 new jobs in the economy since 2014. Average wages are expected to continue rising faster than inflation, up another $7,500 to $66,000 by 2020-21. This is a Government that is committed to building on 8 years of hard work, delivering real results for New Zealanders and their families.

Jami-Lee Ross: How is New Zealand placed to deal with any risks in the global economic environment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand is well placed. The HYEFU shows net debt peaked as a proportion of our economy in 2015-16, a year earlier than previously expected, and is projected to fall to around 18.8 percent of GDP by 2020-21. That puts us in a strong position to deal with any shocks in what is still an uncertain global environment, or further natural disasters like those we have seen in Canterbury and Kaikōura. It puts us in a particularly strong position when compared with what is happening internationally, where debt levels in Europe and the US are many times what they are here. This positive position is a testament to the strong economic management of our former Prime Minister John Key and our current Prime Minister Bill English.

Jami-Lee Ross: What are the fiscal priorities of the Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government’s economic and fiscal priorities remain unchanged. Although last week’s HYEFU is forecasting the positive performance of the New Zealand economy to carry on, it is important that we continue to keep on top of spending and pay down debt in strong economic times. We will build on our strength as a diversifying economy with a safe, stable, and secure business environment focused on attracting investment and growing innovation in the economy. We will continue to strongly advocate for free trade, recognising that New Zealand’s interests are best served by being an open trading economy. And we will continue to provide strong and stable Government for New Zealand.

David Seymour: In his pre-scripted answer to that question did he forget to mention cutting tax and letting hard-working New Zealanders keep more of their own money?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the member, I am sure, knows, because he is a good student of politics, the Government has a range of fiscal priorities, which include paying down debt, investing in infrastructure, investing in public services, and considering the tax burden on hard-working New Zealanders. The exact shape of those will be considered over time, but politicians should always remember that the money they have to spend comes from hard-working Kiwi families.

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill—Māori Children

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha tāna whakamāherehere, mēnā rā i a ia tētahi, tā tāna manatū ranei, i hoatu e pā ana ki ngā whakahīrautanga o te Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill, ki runga tamariki Māori, me ō rātou whānau, hapū, iwi?

[What advice, if any, did he or his ministry provide on the implications of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill for Māori children and their whānau, hapū, and iwi?]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe i tērā pātai. Ko tāku, ko tāku tari he kaha aki kia titiro i Te Ture ki te tamaiti Māori, kaua i tōna kotahi ēngari, ki a rātau, ko tōna whānau, tonā hapū, tōna iwi. Nā, ko tētahi o ngā hua mō mātau, he tautoko i te pire, i ngā kaupapa me ngā ūara Māori pēnei i te mana tāmaiti, mana tamariki, whakapapa me te whanaungatanga.

[Thank you for that question. My office and I strongly urge that the Act in regard to the Māori child be examined not in isolation but with them, their whānau, their hapū, and their iwi. Now, one outcome for us is to support the bill in terms of Māori philosophies and values such as the rights of the child and children, genealogy, and relationships.]

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister support the bill, which, according to the Government’s own Cabinet papers, would increase the placement of tamariki Māori in non-kin care and therefore remove even more tamariki Māori from the care of their whānau, hapū, and iwi?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ko tāku, ko te tautoko i tētahi kaupapa e mea ana, me noho tētahi here o te tamaiti ki tōna whānau, tōna hapū, tōna iwi, kia noho tērā here ko te iwi, ko te whānau, ko te hapū ki te tamaiti. Ko te whakapapa, ko te whanaungatanga i tipu ake ai ki roto i te tamaiti i ngā tau, koirā te kaupapa nui, kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai!

[My role is to support a policy that states that the child’s ties to their whānau, hapū, and iwi and those of the iwi, whānau, and hapū to the child must remain. The genealogy and relationships that the child developed from over the years—that is the important thing; no more, no less!]

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister and Te Puni Kōkiri be OK with the bill, when the changes that are being made cut right against the rangatiratanga of Māori to care for our own tamariki?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tēnei taku kōrero i mua, ko tāku, ko tāku tari ko te kī atu, kia noho tapu te hononga o te tamaiti ki tōna whānau, ki tōna hapū, ki tōna iwi. Ko tētahi kaupapa, kāore i whai i tēna huarahi, kore au e whakaae atu, kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai!

[This was my statement earlier on: my department and I have stated that the child’s connection to their whānau, hapū, and iwi must remain sacrosanct. Any initiative that does not follow that path, I will not allow it either way!]

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister support then the removal from the current law of the provision that requires that priority be given to placing a child with “a person—(i) who is a member of the child’s or young person’s hapu or iwi (with preference being given to hapu members), or, if that is not possible, who has the same tribal, racial, ethnic, or cultural background as the child …”?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kei kī mai wētahi kai te whakatōwai au i ngā kōrero. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, ko te whakapapa o te tamaiti he kaupapa nui ki a au, otirā, ki taku tari, ki Te Ao Māori, ki ngā tamariki, te tikanga. Ko tērā kaupapa kei mua tonu atu i tētahi atu kaupapa, nō reira, tāku ko te kī atu, mēnā e 60 paihēneti, e 65 pai hēneti rānei o ngā tamariki kua hereherea i roto i tēnei tari, te tikanga ia, ko te tirohanga he tirohanga ko te painga o ngā tamariki Māori. Koinei tāku, ka waiho ake ki reira!

[Some might say that I might be dragging out my assumptions. Let me say this: to me, the child’s genealogy is the major platform, but, at the same time, to my department, it is Māoridom and the children, naturally. That initiative is foremost to other ones, so, for me, if 60 or 65 percent of the children within this department retain their ties, the consequence, the view, the overview is the well-being of Māori children. That is my take on the situation, and I will leave it there!]

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the president of the Māori Women’s Welfare League, who has put in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal about this bill, “that the policy changes to a safe, stable, loving home without the existing priority of placement within whanau, hapū, and iwi is a breach of the rangatiratanga and partnership guarantees under the Treaty of Waitangi”?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Well, ko te mate kē kai mua tērā take i Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi te tikanga ia, ka waiho māna tērā pātai e whakatau, kaua māku.

[Well, the problem is, really, that that matter is before the Waitangi Tribunal, and technically speaking it is left for that entity to answer that question, and not for me.]

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister received any advice from the Government’s support party, the Māori Party, that the bill will mean that more babies will be taken permanently from their whānau?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I ētahi wā, ā, ka rongo i ngā kōrero pēnei i tāku e kī nei ki te mema. Kai te rongo ake i te tikanga o āna pātai, kai te rongo ake ki te wairua o te pātai, tōna mutunga, kotahi tonu te kaupapa kai mua i te aroaro, ko te tiaki i wā tātau tamariki. Koia nā te kaupapa nui! Mēnā ka eke tēnei pire ki tōna taumata, ā, taihoa ake nei ka whiriwhirihia ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, ka mutu, ka rongo a taua wā, ko te whakatau o Te Pāti Māori. Waiho ake mā rātau tērā e kōrero!

[Sometimes comments are heard like what I am saying to the member. I am hearing the intent and spirit of the questions, but eventually there is only one philosophy before us, and that is looking after our children. That is the important thing! If this bill reaches its pinnacle, and in time it is considered in this House of Parliament, eventually the Māori Party’s consideration will be heard, in time. Leave it for them to make that statement!]

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: has he received any advice from the Government support party, the Māori Party, about the interpretation of the bill—the effect of the bill? He did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion he did. He acknowledged that he had received advice and said that in his mind the primary interest was the care of the child. The question has been addressed.

Metiria Turei: Is he, as Minister for Māori Development, concerned that the current law allows for more Māori babies to be taken from their mothers at birth, and that now this law will mean that those babies taken at birth may never know their whakapapa?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ā, mō ngā āhuatanga o te pire ka waiho ake mā Te Minita tērā e kōrero ēngari, mō te wāhi ki a au ā-Māori nei, ā-Minita nei, ko ngā tamariki, ko ngā mokopuna me noho tērā here ki wā rātau whānau. Koina te kaupapa nui kai tōku ngākau, ka kaha nei au ki te tohe, ki te pakanga mō tērā kaupapa kia tūtū ai te ara whanaungatanga, ko te tamaiti Māori ki tōna iwi, ki tōna whānau, ki tōna hapū. Ka tohe au mō tērā, pai mai, kino mai.

[In regard to aspects of the bill, I will leave it for the Minister to express it, but in respect of that which concerns me, Māori- and Minister-wise, children and grandchildren must remain bonded to their families. That is the main thing in my heart that I will debate and fight vigorously for in terms of that philosophy, in stitching together the kinship pathway for the Māori child to his iwi, whānau, and hapū. Regardless of the outcome, be it favourable or bad.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the very private and secret talks between the Māori Party and the Green Party recently, why was he not able to sort this matter out?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ē, aroha ki te pātai i te mea, kāre Te Pāti Māori, otirā, ahau i kōrero ki ngā Kākāriki!

[In regard to the question, it is because the Māori Party and, at the same time, I did not speak to the Greens!]

Pike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery Operation

4. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has he met with the families of the Pike River miners today; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): It has not been possible to meet with the families at such short notice, but I ran into Bernie Monk this morning. I am happy to meet with the families at some point in the future, and possibly before Christmas, but I must emphasise that any decision to re-enter the mine is not a political decision. It is a decision about the safety of the mine.

Andrew Little: In light of his answer that it is not a political question, is he going to keep John Key’s promise and do everything he can to get the bodies out?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a question of whether it is safe to get the bodies out without putting other lives at risk. Compared with any other workplace in New Zealand where Kiwis right now are worried about their safety, this is a particularly dangerous one. That is really the key issue.

Andrew Little: Will he come with me after question time to have a proper meeting with the families, look them in the eye, and tell them why he is ignoring their pleas?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because that would be falling in with the Leader of the Opposition’s view that there is a political decision to be made, which may involve putting New Zealanders’ lives at risk in one of the most dangerous workplaces, as we know, in New Zealand. The core issue here is to respect the distress of the families but acknowledge that the decision about going in the mine is essentially one of safety, not politics. That member would be the first to complain if more lives were lost because a politician overrode the law passed by this Parliament.

Andrew Little: When he says it should be up to the experts to determine whether re-entering the mine is safe, is he aware a report saying re-entry is safe has been written by Dr David Creedy, vice-chair of the UN Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane, and Bob Stevenson, former UK principal mines inspector, and that the report has been peer reviewed and endorsed by the United Kingdom’s leading mines rescue expert, Brian Robinson, and by mining ventilation experts John Rowland and Dr Roy Moreby?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, my general understanding of the reports is that they say it may be possible, which is not the same as saying it is safe. Secondly, the member should understand the legislation that he advocated for, which brings together judgment about safety and legal responsibility for anyone in that workplace. Whatever any independent expert says, someone who is responsible for the people who might go into that mine is legally responsible for their lives. That is the correct way, according to the law of the land, that that decision should be made, not with some political meeting, misleading the families that somehow the law can be overridden.

Andrew Little: Why does he not do the right thing, listen to the families, and fulfil his Government’s promise to do everything he can to get their men out?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government, of course, has explored at some length the possibilities in respect of retrieving the bodies from the mine, but it is not going to be put in the position where a political decision is made that puts lives at risk, in contravention of the law of this Parliament. The member does not seem to understand that right now there are people putting up scaffolding around one-storey houses, because that is what the law requires of the employers of painters to ensure that the risks are mitigated, and if they go to that trouble to fulfil their legal responsibilities, imagine what effort would have to be made to go to the trouble of protecting a single person from every danger in that mine.

Ron Mark: If all of that was known to his Government at the time that the former Prime Minister made his pledge, why will he not simply, to quote the Prime Minister, “get some guts” and do the right thing?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is simply not the right thing for a politician to override our workplace safety legislation and instruct people to put their lives at risk. Those risks are likely to be unreasonable.

Pharmac—Funding and Access to Medicines

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that, as a result of the Government’s increased funding of $124 million over 4 years, Pharmac has recently announced a funding package for three new treatments, including for metastatic breast cancer?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Last week Pharmac announced a significant funding package, which includes three new treatments: for metastatic breast cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. This is Pharmac’s third significant funding package following Budget 2016, and it also includes widened access to three existing medicines and considerable savings on five existing medicines. This new package demonstrates Pharmac’s world-class model for increasing subsidised medicines and treatments for New Zealanders.

Dr Shane Reti: How else is Pharmac delivering better access to medicines for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Earlier this year Pharmac announced two new funding packages, including widened access to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations, funding for two new hepatitis C medicines, as well as treatment for advanced melanoma. Under this Government, Pharmac’s budget is now a record $850 million, and it has increased by $200 million since 2008. As a result, over the last 8 years, nearly 170 new medicines have been subsidised and access has been broadened to 245 medicines, directly benefiting over 800,000 New Zealanders.

Hon Annette King: Does he think it is fair that breast cancer patients already on Herceptin and chemotherapy will not be able to access this new funded medicine, but they are in Australia?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This drug, pertuzumab, is an excellent drug for metastatic breast cancer, and my advice to the member is, actually, not to make the science up but to listen to the experts.

Regional Economic Development—Northland

6. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes. I particularly stand by my statement from last week that the new $700 million Pūhoi to Warkworth road linking Northland to Auckland will help boost tourism, boost freight transport, and boost regional development.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How can he say there has never been a better time to get Northland going when his Government sits back and condones price hikes based on theoretical nonsense from the Electricity Authority, killing the dream of resurrecting jobs and economic growth in the Northland region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member clearly did not listen to my previous answer, which was that this amazing new piece of infrastructure is going to make a massive difference to Northland. In relation to the electricity rules, could I suggest he puts down a question to the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Who is the Minister backing—a self-serving and dysfunctional Electricity Authority, which has been legally challenged already on its pricing methodology; or is he going to help Northlanders who will struggle to cope with dashed plans for jobs, which in their view was an economic saviour and a dream for resurrection in the region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I definitely back the Northland region, which is why I have been a strong advocate for the highway between Northland and Auckland. It is why I have worked on the QRC Tai Tokerau Resort College, which this Government has supported. That is why this Government has supported the Hundertwasser Arts Centre and Wairau Māori Art Gallery in Whangarei. That is why we are running the Growing Regional Opportunities through Work programme in Kaikohe. That is why we have rolled out ultra-fast broadband to Whangarei, and are in the process of doing it in other parts of Northland. And that is why we have put up half the funding for improvements to the Whangarei Airport terminal and runway, to enable them to make more tourists and other visitors. This Government has a very good track record in providing for Northland, and the member—

Grant Robertson: It’s a very long answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is a good answer. That is why it is a long answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It does not matter whether it is good or bad; I still have to control the length of it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he agree with the Far North District mayor, John Carter, who said: “It’s a bloody disgrace. These clowns in Wellington, who don’t seem to know about us, go on and put this blasted report out, and I’m really disappointed.”, regarding the Electricity Authority’s review now likely killing off the dream of economic resurrection in Northland; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I get on well with Mr Carter, but I think he is being unfair in his description of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the local member of Parliament for Northland has made no case for any of these interventions but is very willing to stand up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility there.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask a Minister who has spoken to him. That is something that is often asked in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I will take a very dim view if the member does challenge my ruling.

Economic Growth—GDP Per Capita, Productivity, House Prices, and Wages

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): My question is to the Acting Minister of Finance. Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler that “GDP growth on a per capita basis has been slow and labour productivity growth has been disappointing. House price inflation is much higher than desirable and poses concerns for financial stability, and the exchange rate is higher than the economic fundamentals would suggest is appropriate”?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’ve got it wrong. Read it as it’s on the sheet.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is quite clear, Gerry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]

GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There was so much interjection that I could not actually hear the question being read. I am going to invite the member to ask the question again, and I am certainly going to demand far less interjection, which was occurring from my right-hand side. There may be a reason to be excited, but we will still have question time conducted according to the rules.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, just to help with the mood of the Leader of the House, he was concerned that I used the phrase—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need this help, although I know it is genuinely given. The member has been invited to ask his question again, and we will proceed with that.

Grant Robertson: Which question?

Mr SPEAKER: I want the question, as on the sheet, asked.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The concern the Leader of the House raises is a legitimate one, in that the question is down on the order sheet to the Minister of Finance. Technically, it should not have been accepted by the Clerk, because there is no Minister of Finance; there is only an Acting Minister. My colleague Grant Robertson inserted the word “Acting” quite appropriately, based on the ruling that you have made—otherwise he cannot ask it, because there is no Minister of Finance to ask it to.

Mr SPEAKER: I covered this off earlier. In fact, I gave the member the Speaker’s ruling 192/7 to use. Once the member has been appointed the Acting Minister, he is, in effect, the Minister—I covered that off earlier. I call Grant Robertson, if he is to proceed with the question—otherwise I am very happy to move to the next one.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I have discussed this matter enough. I am not putting up with any more pointless points of order. The member can ask the question, otherwise I am quite happy to move immediately to question No. 8.

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler that “GDP growth on a per capita basis has been slow and labour productivity growth has been disappointing. House price inflation is much higher than desirable and poses concerns for financial stability, and the exchange rate is higher than the economic fundamentals would suggest is appropriate”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): I agree with the Governor’s statement overall, which I must say makes other comments prior to those highlighted by the member. It notes: “Relative to the trends over the last two decades, New Zealand is experiencing stronger economic growth, lower inflation, and a lower unemployment rate—even with record levels of labour force participation.” And then after the quote the member uses, the Reserve Bank Governor says that “prospects look good for continued strong growth over the next 18 months,”. Those comments from the Governor mainly highlight the challenges arising from that growth. Once again, the member demonstrates his unerring ability to focus on the slightly less positive comments in a two-page statement.

Grant Robertson: What has GDP per capita growth been in the past year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have it exactly to hand, but I understand—[Interruption] Actually, I do. Actually, I do. [Interruption]

Chris Hipkins: Come on! Do you want this job or not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I could act—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave a relatively severe warning to my right-hand side; I now need to deliver the same to members on my left. The question has been asked. It can be answered.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, I do have it to hand. It is 0.7 percent for the last year, and because the member doubts my knowledge of such things, I will say it is projected to be 1.5 percent in the year to June 2017, 1.7 in the year to June 2018, and 1.5 in the year to June 2019.

Grant Robertson: What is net debt in dollar terms according to the half-year update?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I seek leave to table the half-year update for the member.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We need the answer. If that is the answer, we will move on, but I am certainly not putting the leave.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I do not have the exact number for the member, but I do have the half-year fiscal update here, and I am happy to table it for him.

Grant Robertson: Why does New Zealand, according to the Productivity Commission, have the fourth-lowest labour productivity growth in the world?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the reasons is that it has one of the highest participation rates and one of the highest employment rates in the OECD. If the member has a look at the Productivity Commission report he will note, for example, that some of the productivity and growth per capita measures are moving in the right direction. In fact, our growth per capita is one of the highest in the OECD.

Grant Robertson: What responsibility does he take for New Zealand having the biggest increase in house price to income ratios in the world in the last 6 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the increase in New Zealand prices is fundamentally the product of three things—firstly, the supply constraints that go back 20 years. Those supply constraints, although steadily being unwound, have contributed to the increase in house prices. The second reason has been the historically low interest rates, which people would be mindful to realise will not go on for ever. The third reason has been the strength of the New Zealand economy, which has been one of the strongest in the OECD, with one of the strongest rising income rates. You take those three together and that is the explanation for New Zealand house price increases.

Grant Robertson: According to the half-yearly update, by how much will average wages rise over the next 3 years? I will give him a clue: it is not much more than 1 percent.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, the half-year fiscal update talks about the increase in wages over the next 4 years. They are expected to rise by $7,500, to $66,000, by 2020-21.

Fisheries—Orange Roughy Fisheries

8. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the status of New Zealand’s orange roughy fisheries?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The international Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has recently announced it has certified three of our orange roughy fish stocks. This means that stocks meet the high bar of sustainability as set out by the MSC fisheries standard. A huge amount of work has gone into rebuilding this fishery over the years by industry and successive Governments. Other New Zealand species certified by the MSC are hoki, hake, ling, southern blue whiting, and albacore tuna.

Todd Muller: What is required in order for a stock to be certified under the MSC standard?

Hon NATHAN GUY: MSC is an international non-profit organisation that recognises and rewards sustainable fishing practices around the world. The certification follows 2 years of rigorous reviews and assessments by an independent team of experts. Many international markets are now demanding MSC certification as a baseline requirement. In 2015 orange roughy was estimated to generate export earnings of more than $53 million, and this certification will certainly help to add a premium for this fishery stock.

Child Poverty—Government Measures to Address

9. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Prime Minister: How does he intend to attain the goal of halving poverty in New Zealand by 2030 that the Government signed up to in September 2015 through the UN sustainable development goals?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the last part is not part of the question that has been published. The Prime Minister can address the question as written.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, the Government does intend to work towards that goal. New Zealand is among the best in the world at transparently using data to measure hardship. The latest household incomes report shows that trends in child poverty and material hardship have been flat or falling in recent years. However, too many children still experience hardship, and, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the Government will address that issue through—as it has done in the past—increasing incomes and focusing on supporting our most complicated and vulnerable families.

Marama Fox: What new measures will the Government employ to reduce the 155,000 New Zealand children who live with material hardship, given current measures have not made a considerable difference to those numbers?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We believe that a number of measures taken since this most recent data will have some impact—that is, the insulation of more houses, free doctors visits for under-13s, a $25 increase for all families on a benefit. And, of course, the Māori Party has the opportunity to be part of the Government’s discussions as we go into Budget 2017 about what further measures could be taken, and I would expect that, as usual, it will advocate strongly and occasionally unreasonably.

Marama Fox: Given that answer, what proportion of the Budget in 2017 can we expect to see spent on alleviating extreme material hardship of the 85,000 New Zealand children identified?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Māori Party, in my experience, bids for all of the Budget, to start with, but I am sure that we can come to some kind of reasonable accommodation. But I just make this point, which is that a lot of the advantage—a lot of the progress we can make is not actually about more money. It is about dealing with the issues that are challenges for families stuck in deprivation more effectively—for instance, the family violence pilot in Christchurch, which is revealing that more timely action taken immediately after a family violence incident can have a big impact on reducing the negative outcomes from family violence.

Building Financial Capability—KiwiSaver Reports and Legislative Reform

10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that make it easier for New Zealanders to understand their KiwiSaver statements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today I announced that all KiwiSaver providers will have to disclose the total fees paid, in dollar terms, on KiwiSaver annual statements from 2018. For many New Zealanders, KiwiSaver is the only direct interaction they have with financial markets. It is important that we ensure New Zealanders are able to get the key information about their KiwiSaver investments so that they can make informed financial decisions about their retirement savings. All “KiwiSavers” will see the total dollar fees disclosed in their annual statements from 2018. In 2017 those providers that cannot disclose dollar fees will be required to disclose total fees as a percentage.

Joanne Hayes: How will this change help Kiwis to prepare for retirement?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Around 2.6 million New Zealanders have invested in KiwiSaver, and, collectively, they have around $35 billion in funds under management. What we hope to avoid is a generation of New Zealanders retiring having not thought about their KiwiSaver for 30 years and discovering that they have been in an inappropriate fund or have paid excessive fees, so that the result of their savings is less than otherwise might have been the case. The changes I announced today will ensure that the annual statements that Kiwis receive will include better information so that they can make informed decisions about their investments.

Joanne Hayes: What else is the Government doing to help New Zealanders get ahead financially?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Earlier this year, I announced changes to the regulatory regime for financial advice. These changes will simplify regulation, enable advisers to have sensible conversations with clients, and encourage more people to seek high quality advice tailored to their needs. We will release draft legislation shortly. I have also completed a major reform of New Zealand’s financial market laws under the Financial Markets Conduct Act, which came fully into force this month. This change included standard regular reporting for all KiwiSaver and other managed funds, to allow New Zealanders to make more informed comparisons about a fund’s performance over time. We are also working to raise levels of financial capability among New Zealanders by expanding financial capability programmes in schools, communities, and in workplaces.

Education, National Standards—Purpose and Support from Teachers

11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she concerned that only 16 percent of teachers believe that national standards have had a positive impact on their students’ achievement according to a survey released today; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am more concerned that the member does not understand what national standards are for. National standards are not intended to have a positive impact on students; teachers and teaching are expected to do that. National standards are a way of tracking progress and reporting it. My second concern is that 16 percent of the survey size of 349 amounts to 22 teachers. My third concern is that the member seems to do little work, other than regurgitating NZEI press releases or New Zealand Herald reports.

Chris Hipkins: Did she discuss that answer with Bill English, who said in 2009 that the Government is “unashamed of its priorities to teach all children to read, write, and do maths. That’s why we’re implementing a national standards policy.”; if so, why has the performance of New Zealand students in the international Programme for International Student Assessment studies declined in all of those areas since national standards were introduced?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Hekia Parata—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Actually, if the member just looked again at the Rt Hon Bill English’s answer, it is—well, I will put it the other way. My answer is completely aligned with what he has already said.

Hon Annette King: No, it’s not.

Chris Hipkins: No, it’s not.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It absolutely is. We want to raise literacy and numeracy amongst New Zealand students. National standards—much to the chagrin of the Opposition—is a system of tracking and reporting. But the raising of literacy and numeracy is about the teaching. So we are in complete agreement.

Chris Hipkins: If it is about the quality of the teaching, why is she ignoring feedback from teachers describing national standards as “soul-destroying” for students who make individual progress but remain below the so-called standard, and that one principal said that they had “led to a deterioration in the educational deal our children are receiving”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is absolutely about the quality of teaching, and this Government can stand on its record of putting practical effect to that quality of teaching. I can enumerate—just as my colleagues have previously in this question time—the number of investments this Government has made in the quality of teaching, including the establishment of the Educational Council, including the transformation of professional learning and development, including the extra funding to recruit more scholarships, including the investment in Teach First—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And it’s all getting worse.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not worse, unlike that hopeless former Minister. It is actual—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Our results went up when I was Minister; they’re going down now.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Oh, listen—shall we listen? So I am very—look at the puppets, look at the puppets—happy to talk to our investment. But I want to come to the second part of the member’s question, which is that there is nothing in our policy that requires any teacher to tell any child that they are below the standard. What is required is to report that to the Ministry of Education, so that we can target resources to those kids who need it most.

Chris Hipkins: Is she now claiming that teachers do not need to report to parents when their children are below the national standards, given that that was the whole point of their introduction in the first place?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not making any claims whatsoever; I am stating an expectation. I am saying that, for system purposes, we need to know the range of challenges amongst children so that we can target resources to them in the right amount at the right time. But I do not expect a teacher to take the position of telling a child that it is soul-destroying that they are well below standard. Quite the opposite—we have been encouraging teachers to tell them what their next step—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Do you really think kids don’t want to know what’s in their school report?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Would you like to listen to my answer? Because—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have heard enough of the answer. If the member to my left wants a supplementary question, he knows how to ask for one.

Chris Hipkins: So is she claiming that the compulsory school report that every teacher in the country is now required by the Government to send to parents, explaining whether their child is at, above, or below standard, is not going to be seen by the child?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, I am not claiming; I am telling the member and the House that, as this policy has evolved, I have made it clear to schools that we require at a system level to report to the Ministry of Education. We have evolved several forms of national standard reporting—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I thought it was all about parents knowing. No clue.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It would be quite helpful if that member spoke to his colleague rather than to me, if he needed clarification. We have—[Interruption] Oh, pathetic—look, we have asked for schools and teachers to make sure that the reports they make to parents are helpful in understanding where their child is, what their next learning step is, and what the school is doing about that. That is very clear, I trust, to the member and all his colleagues.

Superannuation—Eligibility and Calculation Policy

12. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement on New Zealand Superannuation, Key’s promise not to tinker with the pension age was “a product of its time”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which was “That was a product of its time, where there was a need to establish trust, and I think it was a sound decision then because the election was followed by a recession, which could have caused real insecurity for older people.”

Denis O’Rourke: Why should anyone approaching retirement trust him not to change the age of eligibility, means testing, or universality for New Zealand superannuation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because Government policy is clear that national superannuation will remain in the current way it is calculated, and, actually, through some pretty tough times the Government has been tested on that. National superannuation has risen at twice the rate of inflation during the period that this Government has been in place.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that raising the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation would not affect Denis O’Rourke or anyone else over 67?

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

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because I suspect that the nature of that question is a personalised attack on certain members of Parliament here, which is likely to lead to disorder—and very quickly—if he carries on in that line, that question should be stopped. It is not in the Prime Minister’s purview to consider any personal circumstance here when the question is about a category of people who have retired. He is talking about members of Parliament, which is not part of his authority or ambit of operation.

David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from David Seymour.

David Seymour: Far from it. I was simply seeking to illustrate the question by reference to a fine, upstanding member of Parliament who happens to be a bit senior.

Mr SPEAKER: I was hoping that that point of order might have helped. But the question, in my mind, was not derogatory of any member; it was not delivered in that way. The question is in order and it can be addressed by the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no possibility of that.

Denis O’Rourke: Why should anyone trust him not to reduce the amount of New Zealand superannuation when in 1998, when he was Associate Minister of Finance, there was a reduction from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage?

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

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The legislation in this House sets out the formula by which national superannuation is calculated, and there is no intentional policy to change that.

Bills

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. This bill provides the foundation for transformational reform across the care, protection, and youth justice systems and support for the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which will focus on five core services: prevention, intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition support into adulthood. It represents the most far-reaching changes to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act since its commencement nearly 30 years ago. It also amends the Vulnerable Children Act and makes some minor amendments to other legislation.

This bill follows on from the changes recently passed through the House in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. This bill will ensure that we place children and young people at the heart of what we do so that we can provide them with safe, loving, and stable homes and the successful lives that they deserve. These reforms are vital.

We have heard time and time again of the poor long-term outcomes children in care face. We have heard these young people talk about how they were not listened to and that they need more support as they move into adulthood. We have also heard that the current system is complex and difficult for families, communities, and professionals to navigate, and we have heard that when things do go wrong, the system lacks the accountability that children and young people deserve.

This bill makes several important changes aimed at improving the long-term life outcomes for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and young people, and I want to start with a change the Hon Amy Adams and I announced just last week. This bill enhances support for those at risk of reoffending by including lower-risk 17-year-olds in our youth justice system. Let me be clear from the outset: 17-year-olds who commit serious crimes will continue to be dealt with in adult courts, but the research tells us that dealing with 17-year-olds in the youth justice system offers us the best opportunity to break that cycle of reoffending and help these young people grow into responsible adults.

That is what this bill is all about—ensuring that our most vulnerable young people can live the successful lives they deserve. One 13-year-old boy wrote to me, sharing his experience of living in care. He told me of how scary it is to leave your family, especially when you do not get to see your brothers and sisters very much. He said he is living with good people but that he has had 18 Child, Youth and Family social workers during his time in care. He told me, as many other young people have, that this is simply not good enough and that he is looking forward to the changes that we are making. It is voices like this that we need to listen to, and we must have a system that puts the interests, the rights, and the views of children at the centre of all decisions and actions.

To provide the foundation for this new system, the bill makes changes to the purposes and principles of the Act to embed a truly child-centred approach and to ensure children’s and young people’s participation. But we know that the system must balance the need to take account of the views of children and young people while making it possible for their families, iwi, hapū, and whānau to take important and significant roles in decision making about their children and young people. This means continuing to consider children in the context of their family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and community and recognising the need to strengthen families to continue caring for their children at the earliest opportunity. With six out of 10 children currently in care being Māori, we must—and we will—do better, which is why the bill includes new purposes, principles, and duties that recognise mana tamaiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and whanaungatanga, which promote capability-building at the whānau level and encourage strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations.

We also know we need sustained and coordinated efforts by social sector agencies if we are to make a real difference in the outcomes for vulnerable children and prevent problems from escalating. The bill amends the Vulnerable Children Act to ensure social sector agency chief executives work together to improve the lives of our most vulnerable children and young people, and it places duties on the chief executive of the ministry to ensure coordination of prevention services and to promote the services that are designed to improve the outcomes for those vulnerable children.

The enduring credibility of all our work requires checks and balances, and the bill requires the ministry’s chief executive to establish a complaints system that is accessible and responsive and requires the Minister to report to Parliament on whether the accountability settings are meeting the needs of vulnerable children. New and amended principles focus on intervening early to improve the safety and well-being of children, young people, and their families, and these changes will support a change in focus, from crisis management to proactive and early support, so that families are assisted to provide the love and care their own children need and deserve.

Where a child is unable to live within their family, arrangements need to be made for that child to form a stable and loving relationship with a caring family at the earliest opportunity. But, make no mistake, these changes do not diminish the central role of parents, families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. Family placements and community placements will be considered in the context of the best interests, needs, and views of the child.

To support children in care the bill requires regulations to be made, setting out national care standards, to ensure that children are cared for in a way that meets their needs and expectations and improves their outcomes. And, of course, it is vital that we not only protect our most vulnerable young people while they are in care but also support them as they transition out of care and take on the responsibilities of adulthood. So this bill creates an entitlement for young people to remain in care, or return to care, up to the age of 21, and it extends the chief executive’s ability to provide support and advice up to 25 years of age. This will ensure that those young people have the ongoing support that we know they need to thrive, because for some of them it takes a bit longer to develop.

Finally, I would like to touch on an aspect of the bill that is crucial to realising our commitment to our most vulnerable children. For years, those working to protect children at risk of harm have told us that a major barrier to keeping them safe is the lack of a consistent approach to information sharing across agencies and professionals. So the bill creates a bespoke information-sharing framework to enable timely and appropriate exchange of information about vulnerable children, to promote their safety and well-being. Within strong safeguards, this framework will allow information to flow as required to those who need it, when they need it.

In conclusion, this bill is the next stage in the multi-year transformation of the whole system, which will ensure that children’s and young people’s safety, protection, and needs always come first. It is important that the public, professionals, and, most importantly, young people with experience in care have an opportunity to have their say on the bill. That is why, alongside the select committee process, I will be continuing to actively engage and meet with young people in care, with communities, and with iwi chairs and organisations like the Māori Women’s Welfare League in the new year.

The changes needed to be achieved are too important to leave to recommendations and goodwill, as so many past reviews have done. Achieving real and enduring change that improves the long-term life outcomes for our most vulnerable children and young people requires bold legislative reform, and that is what this bill is about. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to start with at least some common ground. I am sure that every single member of this House would absolutely concede that we have a care and protection regime that can and must be improved. There are 5,000 young people in State care at any given time. It is incumbent on us to do as much as we can, not only in the first instance, to ensure that those families and whānau are given the greatest opportunity possible to retain the key roles that they have as primary caregivers—not the State, but them—but also in those instances where safety is a concern for a child, to ensure that the State improves the role that it then steps in to play. There is no doubt that we have failed far too many on both the prevention and the intervention side.

I think one of the more devastating reflections of that that I have seen is the Children’s Commissioner’s State of Care 2015 report, where he blatantly stated that having looked at the state of care in New Zealand, he could not confirm, hand on heart, that children in care were better off than in the situations they were removed from. That is an indictment in every respect. So there is no denying that we can and should do better.

The debate that then arises is: what does that look like? How can we reform the legislation in a way that is, yes, child-centred but recognises the important ties and bonds with whānau, iwi, and hapū and the important need for cultural connectedness, and how do we improve practice on the ground? That is something I have heard professionals talking about a lot. One thing that is absolutely unwavering is the desire amongst our social work professionals, be they within Child, Youth and Family (CYF) or out in the NGO sector—their unwavering desire—to do the best that they can by the communities that they work in. It is something that I think we need to reflect more often in this debate.

Our concern is, though, that this bill takes us backwards. At one point, in fact: “During the 1980s”—and I am taking this from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) website—“there was increasing dissatisfaction with the negative effects statutory care practices were having on a growing number of children.”—that is according to Dr Marie Connolly in 2004—“Children were frequently placed outside their kinship network, and the overrepresentation of Maori children in care meant that Maori families felt the effects of this cultural loss.” I reiterate that this report is on the MSD website. “In 1986 the most significant report to address welfare issues and the needs of Maori was introduced, Puao-te-ata-tu (Ministerial Advisory Committee, 1986). The report made many recommendations regarding the particular needs of Maori children and their families,”—again, they are overrepresented in our CYF numbers—“but most critically with respect to the care and safety of children it reinforced the centrality of whanau and the maintenance of the child within the family group.”

The consequence of that report was that in 1989, we had groundbreaking legislation in the form of the Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. It was groundbreaking, it was world leading, and it placed children and family at the centre of that legislation but it also introduced practices like family group conferences. In particular, the principles of that Act, under section 13(2), included sentiments like, for instance, “(f) where a child or young person is removed from his or her family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group, … that,—(i) wherever practicable, the child or young person should be returned to, and protected from harm within, that family, whanau, hapu, iwi,”.

So, of course, it puts safety first. That has never ever been in question. Safety has always been first in that legislation of 1989. But it then went on to say that “where the child or young person cannot [immediately] be returned to, and protected from harm within, his or her family,” wherever practicable, the child should live, where appropriate, in the same locality as that in which the child or young person was living and in which the child’s or young person’s links with his or her family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group are maintained and strengthened. The idea of these provisions was that there was priority—safety first, but, secondary to that, priority was placed on the idea that children would be retained in kinship and whānau care. That might not be immediate family; it might be an outer layer. But, either way, it was recognising—it was recognising—that that was of primary importance. This bill removes that provision.

I am not just taking an interpretation of that. The Minister has been explicit that she has removed that provision because she believes that that has led to distorted practice on the ground. Our argument is that if the practice is wrong, change the practice. Change the practice guidelines. But the legislation is the biggest guide we have to inform practice, and if the legislation purposely omits priority around kinship care—which, I have to add, is not just a New Zealand principle, as much as we have grasped it. It is internationally recognised and evidence-based, because it reduces trauma on children, it reduces harm done to children, and it is child-centred practice. The fact that it has been explicitly and purposefully removed from this legislation is something we cannot support.

If the Minister says to us: “We want greater priority placed on what the child wants.”, no problem—let us put the child’s view front and centre. If the child says “No, I don’t want to be placed with family. I do not feel safe”, that should be front and centre—no question. Sibling placement—absolutely we agree that being placed with your siblings is of huge importance. That is a connection that we should be retaining as a priority. Let us put that as a principle—front and centre. But let us also maintain the importance of that kinship care—for Māori, yes, but also for non-Māori, for Pasifika, and for all kids in care—and if it is not possible, then of course you look more widely.

That is what the legislation in 1989 should have achieved. The problem that we had was that, in practice, Child, Youth and Family, yes, treated it as a priority, but it did not treat it the same as wider care. It did not undertake the same risk analysis and risk assessments. In fact, in many ways, you could assume that it was seen as a less risky option to the State to place a child in family care, because then we were no care and no responsibility—we did not support those placements in nearly the same way we have supported every other form of placement. So we do not do proper risk assessment and we do not properly support whānau and family in kinship care, and then when things go wrong, we stand back and say: “Oh, kinship care is broken.” That is not true. What this legislation should have done was put kinship care on equal footing with other forms of care in terms of support and actually lift the priority of it—retain the priority.

I want to highlight again: no one has said that that should happen over and above safety for the child, or over and above a child’s view on what they want. But to remove it altogether is plain wrong. It takes us a massive step backwards from where we were as a world-leading nation on child protection issues, and that is a bottom line for us.

I have to say that there are other provisions around prevention that we support. There are provisions around youth justice and raising the age of the Youth Court jurisdiction that we support, but we cannot support a bill that makes such a fundamentally wrong move on kinship care. So we in the select committee will be absolutely as pragmatic and helpful as we can to have those provisions returned. We will work alongside our fellow members, but right now we will not support this bill at this reading until those provisions are returned to this bill.

I want to finish on a final point—and my colleagues will talk about the lack of consultation with iwi leaders, in particular, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League case before the Waitangi Tribunal. I want to finish on one final point: how can you truly take a preventative approach if we do not factor in child poverty, financial stability, and the economic conditions that children are growing up in? It is the No. 1 determinant of child well-being, and yet a bill that purports to deal with child well-being is not allowing the ministry to take into account any issues around child poverty.

A ministry for children under Labour would have a plan to eradicate child poverty. That is what our ministry for children will do. “Oranga Tamariki, Ministry for Children” will care about the well-being of all children, and that means the financial security of their whānau.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill in its first reading. I just want to comment on what the previous member, Jacinda Ardern, spoke on, and I would agree. She said that for all of us here in the House we have the same intent and purpose, which is to ensure that our children, our tamariki, and our whānau are well cared for, especially those who are more vulnerable. In fact, I can remember us being in a debate—I think it might have been in 2014—where we talked about the challenges of poverty for our children, and the member is right: the reality is that poverty and the issues and the challenge of it have been around for some time.

In fact, the comment that the member made at that point in time was that, actually, for those members, under Labour over those previous 9 years, it was a job unfinished. What that goes to prove is that the challenges are very complex. They cannot be solved even in a short period of time. They are systemic. They need a critical point of change, constantly along that process. So the member is right. In that debate, when questioned about why, in the 9 years under a Labour Government, it had not reduced child poverty, the response was that that was a job unfinished. It was a job unfinished.

I agree with the member, because it is complex and it is difficult. So I agree with the member that this is something that we need to be consistent about. The process in order to be able to deal with these things—if we think about this bill—sits inside a range of other issues that need to be addressed: issues around housing, employment, and issues around health and education. When we talk about them they are systemic—the challenges that we face and that our children face. So I would agree with the member.

If we then narrow down to where this bill sits—I can remember that back in the day, in fact, in 1995, I actually began a period of time where for about 6 or 7 years I was on the care and protection resource panel out in Royal Oak. I can remember that at that time part of our role and responsibility was, as social workers came in and talked about the challenges that they faced in their case management approach, to be able to give them feedback from us as community representatives to talk about those challenges and how they were accommodating the complexities of what they were facing. They were talking about kin carers, they were talking about placements, and the statutory roles and responsibilities that they had to remove children from a traumatic situation. Even compared with that time, I would have to say that when I read the current stories and casework of social workers at present, nothing has changed. I would say that nothing has changed—those issues are still present.

I have to commend the Minister for Social Development because, after 14 reviews, this is the second part of a transformation overhauling this part of the legislation. I think that is important. The thing that I think is significant about this—and we think about significant change—is that the current Act from 1989, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, became more focused on crisis management. The point of difference for this bill is to ensure that actually it is looking at a number of long-term life outcomes for children in care. I suppose it is more outcome-focused, rather than focused on the immediate aspect of ensuring the care and protection and the well-being of the child. So what we would call crisis management moving into a more outcome-focused approach is quite critical to that.

The second part that I think is quite critical is that we have always talked about the point of difference, which is being child-centred. We know that has been quite fundamental. Part of that is the paramountcy of the child. But then when we think about the Whānau Ora model, for instance, which was introduced by our coalition partner, the Māori Party, the fact is that it is talking about the paramountcy of the whānau—the two collectively working together. Although we try to hold those two elements together, what I think is significant about this—and I am looking forward to hearing the submissions on this through the select committee—is how we allow the voices and the concerns of our children to be part of the planning of a safety plan and also of an outcome-focused plan into the future. I think this is going to be quite critically important to that, as well.

The bill allows us to have a single point of accountability and it has a social investment approach. In other words, when we think about the procurement of services that surround the child—if you think about education, for instance, it is a similar process, where the funding will follow the child. What was quite specific about this previously was that, in a sense, the funding was there for the providers to provide the service. What we have seen is that that model had to change. The model now has to be focused on the child, or the children—the tamariki in the situation—what is going to best serve their needs and the issues that they currently are experiencing? This is where there is a point of difference that I think is actually quite critical. So the whole procurement model of services is going to be quite critically important to this process, as well.

I am looking forward to this bill coming into our select committee, the Social Services Committee; we are actually meeting tomorrow. We will also then be able to open up for submissions and to hear from others. I am sure, as the member Jacinda Ardern said, that we will be able to debate the issues robustly. There are always opportunities to shift and change and remodel legislation as it sits. That is part of the grunt work of a select committee, so I look forward to that opportunity, and I do commend this bill in its first reading to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Things most definitely have to change in the care system for our children. In fact, members across the House will know and understand acutely what the harsh impact of children being uplifted by State care has been on families. In my constituency alone we have numerous cases where the current system has failed the child and their whānau. However, are we there yet with this bill? We have to ask the question. I do not think so. We are not there yet.

If we look at the statistics to see that 60 percent of children who are uplifted are Māori, you would want to see the type of legislation that gives greater recognition to things that will ensure the care and protection of Māori children in a way that will lead to long-term integration back into their whānau settings. Why is this important? Because we know—and my colleague Jacinda Ardern has pointed to the research—that when a child is connected to their whakapapa, their culture, their language, their identity, and their place of belonging, then their opportunity to move forward can be so much more enhanced.

What are the barriers? Some of the barriers are legislative, and many are operational. That is a given. I think during the select committee process we will see some quite thoughtful and insightful submissions that will provide the committee with ample context to be able to argue in favour of making explicit in the legislation a provision for, and a preference towards, kin care. That is really what we are debating here. There are numerous aspects of the bill that I think the committee will consider and see the benefits in, such as the voice of the child being provided for in the recommendations of what is in their best interests. However, when you think about getting the balance of interests right and who makes the decision, that is where context will matter, and that is where the legislation and what is written in the bill will absolutely be critical. We would argue that ensuring that there is recognition at the front end, in the legislation, of kin care as a matter of equal priority to all those other aspects—observation should be put into that recommendation.

The other aspect is on information and data sharing. It seems to me at a first reading—albeit a first reading—that this will be a very challenging area, but necessary. If you want to make the best decisions for a child when there could be multiple agencies involved in offering information to the child and the whānau, information sharing and data collection are absolutely necessary. You only need to look at the family safety network and how that operates, and also the child safety teams and the amount of information gathered by various agencies and providers, to be able to say: “OK, what can we all do together to ensure the options around care for this child are better strengthened?”.

However, I want to come back to the germane issue, and it is a matter that Metiria Turei raised in her question to the Minister for Māori Development today. That is that at the heart of this bill, if we are trying to turn around and make fundamental changes to improve lifetime outcomes for tamariki Māori, then greater recognition of those aspects of a child’s context matters. She alluded to the Māori Women’s Welfare League’s Waitangi Tribunal claim and the issue of rangatiratanga. Well, at the heart of mana is rangatiratanga.

I am asking the question, certainly, of the Māori Party: what are the benefits of sitting around the table if the Government has ignored any advice that might have been given to it about a fundamental issue hinging off the Treaty of Waitangi, recognition of mana, rangatiratanga, and the interests of the child—this 60 percent of children who have been uplifted?

Marama Fox: There wouldn’t even be a Treaty clause in this bill.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am looking forward to the contribution of the member, because if the Māori Party has been sitting around the table and it has been totally ignored on this front, then absolutely we should be concerned, because those interests that have been advocated by Māori social workers, providers out there in our community, and even iwi providers—my own iwi, who are in this space right now and who have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government, have concerns about this bill.

There has been inadequate consultation. The Minister presented the architecture of the bill to the Iwi Leaders Forum. There was some trepidation about whether or not it would achieve what she said it would achieve. In fact, there has probably been quite a high level of concern about the lack of consultation, not just with iwi leaders but with those organisations that fundamentally want to be in the space of caring for our tamariki, those people who work at the front line, those people who have experience in family group conferences, and those Māori social workers who know intimately all the different aspects of trying to make the best decision for children so that they do not remain in non-kin care but, actually, can migrate back to their whānau. These are the things that we are concerned about.

Pūao-te-ata-tū—when John Rangihau, who used to be an early Māori welfare officer and who went to the University of Waikato, was commandeered back to advise the Minister of Māori Affairs at the time, he absolutely focused on health and absolutely focused on identity and these aspects to do with well-being. Pūao-te-ata-tū provided a number of opportunities for the Government of the day to think in a different context about getting things right. Matua Whāngai emerged out of Pūao-te-ata-tu. The issues around the early settings for State care and how we approached that in recognising whānau, hapū, and iwi in care models emerged from Pūao-te-ata-tu. In fact, the genesis of totally revamping the social welfare system to make greater provision for, at its time, a more targeted approach can be linked back to Pūao-te-ata-tu. But what we have seen is a systemic non-recognition of the intent of that earlier report, and I will leave the rest of it for other colleagues to comment on.

My point is that if this legislation is designed to help, support, and reverse the high numbers of Māori children in State care and to allow them to be better positioned or better put into care models that will have long-term gain, then we cannot ignore and deny the need for whānau kin care models to be prevalent within the way the legislation is written but also within the way that we support those models that are out there now, working. I heard the speaker previous to me, Alfred Ngaro, speak about the social investment model and the new procurement approach. If this is code for being able to support preventative solutions for care for children, which it may well be, then I would put this on the table: iwi providers that are currently in this space are identifying that the front end of the service is where you need to invest if you are going to go for long-term solutions. The funding does not follow the intent, and, right now, all of that responsibility is being borne through the innovation and the care and concern that iwi want to have within this space. I pointed to this issue in the previous debate on a child, youth, and family bill, and said to the Minister that if there was genuine consideration of the evaluation coming out of those early iwi-based care models, then, absolutely, they would be looking to see how preventative care can be better supported. It is unclear in this legislation.

I want to finally come back to whether or not the bill will actually fix the biggest challenge that we have, which is far too many Māori tamariki in State care. I do not think we are there yet. It does need to go to select committee, and it does need to get a full hearing. It is going to be really important, the way in which the select committee entertains aspects of this bill that fundamentally look at a different service delivery model. All that said, if the bill does not provide in some shape or form a preference towards iwi, hapū, and whānau care models, then I think we are leaving it to chance.

This is what I would say: if we think any Government department will, within its own good conscience, recognise that the things that we are saying must be written into legislation, you are dreaming—absolutely dreaming. If we make provisions specific that kin care matters and that it needs to be considered alongside those other aspects—the voice of the child, the role of the whānau, and the ability to support services; on balance, all those things considered together—then the best decision can be made, but you have to be explicit in the legislation.

I support the contribution of my colleague Jacinda Ardern, and the explanation as to why we cannot support this bill at its first reading. We would urge people to be involved in the debate. We would urge the Government to look at the Waitangi Tribunal claim, and at what has been expressed as a result of a number of contributions to the forum Hui Whakatipu, but, other than that, at other areas as well. We would also urge the Government to consult with those iwi who are involved in this care provision space, because they are creating the innovation and the practice model to ensure that our kids are better cared for. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): This weekend my son Whatahoro marries his love, Matariki, at our marae at Hurunui o Rangi. It is home. Home—the place of our hearts, the place where our hearts return, the centre of our heritage and history, and the basis of all we are. The dictionary definition of “home” is a “social unit formed by a family living together; a familiar or usual setting; a place of origin”. It is, therefore, with the thought of home that I come to this legislation, the Children, Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill.

At the centre of the ceremonies this weekend will be my mokopuna. Although just a babe, he is surrounded by a loving legacy of Kahungunu and Whanganui. His waiata is sung to him, and already he understands the distinctive mita of his relations, the sacred spaces, and the stories that are his. I contrast the situation of my moko with that of a young man speaking of his experiences in care: “For my first 5 years in care I was beaten every day. I experienced fear every day. The day after the funeral of my father, I was picked up and placed in a new home. It took 12 years of letter writing to find my sister. There would be a standard 2 to 3 weeks’ delay to contact a social worker. I would disclose to the social worker, then go home and get beaten up again.”

No child anywhere, in any care, should have to live through such abuse. Safety must never be compromised. In exactly the same vein, no child should ever be disconnected from the very essence of who they are. Mana tamariki, whakapapa, and the love and connection of whānau are absolutely fundamental to a child’s ability to grow into a strong, confident, healthy adult.

If there is one group of New Zealanders that deserves our utmost respect, it is those young people who were brave enough to speak of their experiences to the expert panel last year. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence associated with the expert panel’s final report was a postcard from a Youth Advisory Panel member. One half of the postcard was a design with three simple words: “I am Māori.” The other half contained a letter, and I am going to quote from that letter: “Dear Anne Tolley. When you read the final report over Christmas, I’d like you to think about the importance of keeping whānau connections to keep the child’s identity intact, and supply them with the support needed to do so. This is important as a child should know where they are from, where they come from, and know that there people out there who love them. This identity is not just where the child comes from and what culture they are. It is everything that makes them who they are.”

There is nothing more important to tangata whenua than to know where they come from—who we are, what our connections are, and where we belong to. In this respect we are proud of and positive about the new purposes of the bill, which recognise mana tamaiti or tamariki, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga of the Māori children and young persons, but—and it is a major “but”—there is a particular word that appears over and over again throughout the bill that diminishes the intent of these very significant words.

The bill promotes “a child-centred approach that is culturally authentic and successful in delivering improved outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and whānau.” That is great—that is great—until we get to new section 5(c) Part 1, clause 8, when we learn that the “informal networks and supports of a child or young person and their family are acknowledged and, where practicable, utilised;”. Excuse me? When is it not practicable to understand the value and birthright—the genealogical connection, the power of the family connection—to our children?

Then we are told that “the importance of whakapapa and whanaungatanga is recognised by ensuring that wherever possible, their whānau, hapū, and iwi can participate in those decisions.” But later on, in new section 13(2) in Part 1, clause 13, it says: “where a child or young person is at risk of being removed from their immediate family, whānau, or usual caregivers, the child’s or young person’s usual caregivers, family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group should, unless it is unreasonable or impracticable in the circumstances, be assisted to enable them to provide a safe, stable, and loving home…”, as if those two things can be separated.

I thought we were putting the child at the centre. I thought we were listening to the child and making it most important that everything they need is contained in their care and protection. But only when it is practicable or reasonable or appropriate? We did fight very hard for the last 6 months to even have these words put in the bill, “whakapapa, whanaungatanga, mana tamariki”, only to have them qualified by “practicable”, weakened by “appropriate”, and given some sort of determination by “when reasonable”.

There is a really significant, new responsibility introduced in the bill that broadens and clarifies the duties of the chief executive to “provide a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” No provisos, no qualifiers, not “when practicable”, but always, because it is always important that a child has the right and the ability to know who they are, what their identity is, and from the mouths of the children themselves, they have said so.

“Practicable” denotes being capable of doing something if the circumstances are favourable, being viable, feasible—all well and good. But we know that whenever there is legislative flexibility, so too will officialdom exercise that flexibility. Resources—children’s needs are paramount. If the question of resourcing is associated with understanding whether a certain action is practicable, about finding their whakapapa and their whānau connections, we all know what the decision makers will do. If there is any indecisive hesitancy, we, as the Māori Party, cannot support this bill in its first reading if somebody is going to ask: “Do I have enough time? Is there enough resource? Am I going to spend too much time filling in a piece of paper to bother to find this children’s whānau?”.

If mana tamaiti, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga stand for something, then it will and must be done. We cannot be drawn into a debate about bureaucracy, about whether there is enough time, and about whether, in all reasonable circumstances, we should give heed to that message. It is part of who we are. It is intrinsic in every part of us. When we strip that away from our tamariki, when we go to place them, for ever, with another family—and we might “promote” their whakapapa, so I can give you a book about it and a picture, because that is promoting. Or do I need to “recognise” and “provide for”?

The little words in this bill are significant and important, and yes, the Māori Party has sat at the table and we have done everything. There would not be a Treaty clause in this bill had we not been at that table. For some people in the National Government, they might think that that would be better. But if 63 percent of Māori children make up the children in Child, Youth and Family (CYF) care, if 63 percent of those children are Māori, if 71 percent of the children, young people, in prison are Māori, we are the mainstream. We should not have a Māori issues paper on the side, to decide what we might do or might not do. The entire make-up, the entire structure, the entire rebuild of CYF needs to be done in accordance with Māori principles.

What has happened is a systematic failure, where even the Children’s Commissioner said that some of those children would have been better off staying in their abusive families than going into CYF care. In fact, going into CYF care has been detrimental to them. They are more likely to fall out of school without a qualification, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to be abused in State care. That is double jeopardy. We cannot repeat the tragedy of the past. We cannot have a new stolen generation by removing links to whakapapa in this new design. It was not Māori families that failed all of their children; the system has failed all of their children.

Lastly, I want to say it is not a question of having a safe, loving, stable home or a Māori home, as if they are not mutually exclusive. We cannot support this bill. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party will oppose this legislation. There are some positive aspects to the bill that we do support, such as extending the youth justice age—albeit with the restrictions that are in it, and we would like to see those restrictions moved—and extending the age of care, assuming that the care is safe, and we can understand the provisions for that. We support early intervention for families and whānau where children are unsafe and need to be protected. We do not support the permanent removal of children from their families. It is an absolutely outrageous proposition in this bill. It is typical of National to combine it with a couple of other provisions that will be supported. But the fundamental provision in this legislation is the deliberate intention to remove Māori children from Māori whānau for good. It is an assimilationist policy in this legislation. It is a crime against the rights of the child and their whānau. It is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is extremely serious.

As a result of the seriousness of these proposals for Māori whānau, I have proposed an amendment to the motion that the bill go to the Social Services Committee. It should go to the Māori Affairs Committee—absolutely this bill should go to the Māori Affairs Committee. Those are the provisions. We all, generally, agree with them. They are not that controversial. The fundamental premise of this bill is to take from whānau our babies. So the bill should go to the Māori Affairs Committee, which is the only safe committee for Māori whānau to speak to about the consequences of this legislation. I hope that other members, if there is an opportunity, will support that amendment to the motion.

There is a very abusive and difficult history of State intervention with Māori children, through the whole colonisation of this country. Right from the very beginning, there were requirements for whānau to send their children to school—send their Māori children to English-speaking schools—where they were required to learn English, based on the theory that assimilation was better for those children. What it led to was a significant destruction of our own language and our own tikanga. Beyond colonisation itself, that was the first of those serious interventions against Māori children and their right to be Māori in their own country. Much later the mokopuna of that first wave of assimilated children suffered from Government policy in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. That was a slightly softer version, saying that Māori whānau, particularly because so many of them were poor and rural, were not able to provide for their children the kinds of lives that Pākehā had decided were better for them, and so those children were taken and put into Children, Youth and Family (CYF) care—some for superficial and terrible reasons, but reasons that were largely about prejudice and racism against Māori whānau.

Those children were taken and put into State care, into institutions that were largely occupied by Māori children and run by Pākehā Government agents, and those children suffered appalling, horrific abuse in those institutions—all the children, Pākehā and Māori, who were in those institutions. We have seen the results from the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, which has only skimmed the very surface of the crimes committed against children in care, of just how appalling State care was for those children. They were taken, they were placed in institutions and with foster families, and they were horribly abused—particularly Māori boys. That Confidential Listening and Assistance Service report highlights the particularly nasty attacks on Māori boys. Now, another generation later, the mokopuna of those children are being subject to another legislative Government intention to remove those babies from their whānau.

Anne Tolley and her people think that it is better that we do not take care of our own kids. That is the only excuse for removing the “whānau-first” placement priority that has been in legislation and was hard-fought-for, and has now been taken out. It runs alongside the existing legislation that actually was put in place by Paula Bennett, the new Deputy Prime Minister, some years ago, which allows for even more babies to be taken from their mothers at birth, in the birthing unit. So there has been a significant increase in Māori babies being taken from their mothers at birth, and with this legislation, which removes the kin in placement priority, those babies will never go home. It does not matter how well that whānau is, it does not matter how much work that mother has done to get herself well, it does not matter what else is going on—those babies will never go home. It is a stolen generation, again. We have had waves and waves of the State telling Māori that the way we raise our kids and our love and our connection to our babies do not matter as much as they do for Pākehā families.

The trick to this is, of course, the numbers. More than 60 percent of the kids currently in care are Māori children. We know that the kids today in State care are not safe. There are hundreds of them missing. There are hundreds of them on the street because CYF does not know where they are—all right? They are being kept or taken into inadequate places. There was a report last Thursday about a CYF worker who took a kid—14 years old—and placed him in a well-known Mongrel Mob home. That kid then committed a crime—a burglary—and was convicted in the Youth Court, as a result of being placed by CYF in a Mongrel Mob home when his grandmother had said: “I will take him.” His grandmother said: “Give him to me. I am his family and I will help to take care of him.” And even under the existing rules, which are supposed to prioritise kinship placement, that child—because at 14 you are still a child—was placed in a Mongrel Mob environment, committed a crime, and has suffered the results.

If any provisions in the law change so as to reduce the priority of having our kids placed with our whānau and our hapū, those kids will suffer terrible consequences from that State intervention and assimilation. They will be left out. They will suffer abuse. They will have nowhere to go to have their lives repaired. And the whānau will have lost our whakapapa. After all this time, does the Government really have zero concept of the importance of whakapapa? I do not understand it, actually, because Government members would not do it to their own kids. They would not do it to their own—

Jacqui Dean: Oh, come on.

METIRIA TUREI: No, it is true. They would not do it to their own kids.

This is a policy that the Government members know will have its greatest negative impact on Māori children and Māori whānau. They know that it will mean that more of our kids are taken, and more of our kids will be unsafe. It is one of the most disgraceful policy decisions by Government I have seen in a long time. We will oppose it. We will support the Māori Women’s Welfare League in its Treaty claim to oppose it on that basis. But, as a family person with kids of my own, attached to other families with kids of their own, I say there is no way that this legislation should proceed. There will be a fight on the Government’s hands. It will not keep taking our babies off us. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. At this stage New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill, for one very good reason. It is no secret that New Zealand First has made it quite clear that it will not be supporting any move in the youth justice age and the Youth Court age to include 17-year-olds. I will get into that in a second, but I think I need to address a couple of things that are of concern.

The first one is that this afternoon the Minister for Social Development had a briefing with the Labour Party spokesperson on social development on these matters that are going to be happening in this bill. New Zealand First members were not there. We were not invited to that briefing.

Jono Naylor: Aw!

DARROCH BALL: Oh, you might say “Aw!”, Mr Naylor, but this is why the people of New Zealand are sick and tired of the “Pepsi and Coke” pendulum swing that we have got. You know, the Minister might not realise that it is election year next year, or maybe she is just too arrogant to understand that perhaps the Labour Party is not the only party she needs to be briefing. But I digress. I will move on to the point I was going to make in detail about the reasons why we have got issues with the Youth Court age being increased to include 17-year-olds.

But before I do, I think I need to address the main issues that the Labour Party and the Green Party—and the Māori Party as well—have been spouting that they have got an issue with, which is the provision whereby the decisions of paramount importance that are made by the State should not be the care and protection of the children. Because that is what the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party are saying—that what should be of paramount importance is where that child is placed and that that child should be placed back into family, iwi, whānau, or hapū. That is what they are saying should be No. 1 in importance. Sixty-three percent of children—63 percent—in the care system are Māori, so why has that provision not worked yet? Why has that provision not worked yet? The fact of the matter is that the Māori Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

DARROCH BALL: The Māori Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party are living in some dream world, where in the ideal world all Māori children should be living with their Māori family. Of course they should, and ideally they should, but that is not the ideal world. Those are not the facts. The facts are that we have got foster kids, like Ron Mark who grew up in a foster family with Pākehā parents, not because he was forced there, but because the Pākehā parents were the ones willing to stand up and look after him. That is why.

Marama Fox: And Māori aren’t? It is not mutually exclusive.

DARROCH BALL: If the tangata whenua were so keen on looking after their children, why are they not doing that now? Why are they not doing that now? This is the reason why we have got issues in this country in regard to the care and protection of our children. I think that the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the Māori Party need to wake up, come off their dream cloud, and understand the reality of the care and protection of our children.

Marama Fox: That all Māori people are bad and ugly—is that what you are saying? That’s what you just said, Darroch.

DARROCH BALL: Stop that. Do not be ridiculous. Do not be ridiculous—grow up. I would like to think that I have made the New Zealand First position clear on that point.

I would like to move on to another point that we are just as passionate about, and that is the youth justice and Youth Court age. For the last 18 months to 2 years I have been standing up in this House, in the media, and in everything else and saying that this youth justice system is failing, and yet we have got the Minister for Social Development standing up and saying that she has the research that backs up her claims that 17-year-olds would be better off in the youth justice system. Well, I say table it. I say, where is that research? I asked the Minister whether part of her research was asking the front-line police and the youth aid officers, who work with these youth daily, and I can guarantee it would not be—I can guarantee it would not be.

Seventy-five percent of front-line police officers do not want the Youth Court age to change—75 percent. Does the Government listen? No. Fifty-five percent of the youth aid officers, who deal daily with these youth, do not want the Youth Court age to change. Does the Government listen? No. The Government wonders why there are accusations from the public that it is so far out of touch. And then the Labour Party wonders why there are all these accusations that it is so far out of touch.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Oh no, oh no.

DARROCH BALL: Oh yes.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: You’re making that up.

DARROCH BALL: Oh no, I am not.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Oh yes, you are, you know.

DARROCH BALL: No, no, you are right: 23 percent means you are really in touch there—23 percent.

If the Minister is standing up and saying that a 60 percent reoffending rate in the youth justice system is a good thing and it wants to include more 17-year-olds with that, then I beg to differ. If this Government is seriously talking about early intervention, then why has it not focused at all on the Family Court and child offenders? Every single 14-year-old in the youth justice system who goes through the Youth Court has been a child offender. The fact is that, currently, the Family Court has no power. It has no room for intervention for the 10- to 13-year-olds. That is where we need to start focusing, but this Government, the Labour Party, and the Green Party have ignored that fact. They have ignored it.

We have got a youth justice system that is failing. We have got 40 percent of all youth offenders who are in the youth justice system who have offended three or more times. That is not a successful youth justice system. Fourteen percent of individuals, youth offenders in the youth justice system, have offended six or more times. The tragic fact is that this Government has stood up and talked about family group conferences (FCGs) being the cornerstone of the youth justice system. The fact is that 80 percent of youth offenders do not go into court, so they do not get to the FGCs. And when they do go to the FGCs, they have got an 80 percent reoffending rate—an 80 percent reoffending rate—and yet, apparently, the Government wants to increase the Youth Court age to include more young people, so it can fail more young people.

This Government is going to spend over a billion dollars on a new prison. The fact of the matter is that half of all our current adult prison population have gone through the Youth Court previously—half of all the current adult prison population have gone through the Youth Court. If the youth justice system was working and if the Youth Court was working, we would not have half the adult prisoners that we do now. We would not have to be spending the billion dollars on new prisons that we are now. But, instead of looking at the facts, the Government stands up and all the other Opposition parties stand up on ideological grounds, speaking rhetoric that is just bereft of fact. If they did have a look at the facts that we have to deal with, that the front-line police have to deal with, and that the people who work with these young people have to deal with, day in and day out, they would know that it is not the right decision to increase the Youth Court jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds.

I am more than looking forward to the different stages of this bill progressing through the House, and especially the select committee process, because I have got a ton of questions. New Zealand First wants some answers, especially in regard to the Youth Court age changes that this Government wants to make. But at this stage we will not be supporting this bill, for the reasons that we have set out. Thank you.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I would like to take a bit of a different tack compared with Darroch Ball, the last speaker, and talk about children and young people, and about how they should be at the centre of the legislation that we are talking about today. If we take a step back, I want to join my colleague Marama Fox and acknowledge the very brave children and young people who spoke very openly about their experiences in care, and those experiences have informed this bill that is before us in the House in its first reading today. I would also like to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro, the chair of our Social Services Committee, where this bill will be going after its first reading.

We have heard today some very empathic, energetic, and emphatic views and thoughts about where we are heading with this legislation. I think, overall, this level of debate is correct. It is something we need to get right. It is very clear from the expert panel’s recommendations that things have been broken for a long time. This is not just about a reform; it is a root and branch change to the way we care for some of our most vulnerable children and young people in New Zealand. I think what is important is that we stay focused on those vulnerable children and young people and put them at the heart of the decision making.

What we know about the life course that we travel on as we age is that it is all about transitions—transitioning from infancy into childhood, adolescence, teenage years, and adulthood. What we know is that these young people require a certain level of support that we have not been providing, so I think it is fantastic that this bill will be ensuring that children in care receive a transitionary service up to the age of 21, as well as future support up to the age of 25.

Also in this bill as well is provision for a lot more early intervention. Like me, there are other people in this House who will have worked in early intervention services for young people. They will know themselves that quite often you get to work with young people in an early intervention framework in their teenage years, but it becomes very clear very quickly that if it was early intervention, you would have intervened a lot earlier, and this bill will support that.

Unlike the last speaker, I welcome the introduction of 17-year-olds into youth justice. I think it is not only about being tough on crime—because we all know that for that level of youth criminal, they can go into the adult court—but it is also about being tough on the causes of crime. Through the youth justice system, we will be able to address that, and I applaud Minister Anne Tolley for being so bold in bringing in these changes under this bill.

I think what we also need to do is think about how we provide a whole-of-Government approach to ensure we work with these vulnerable children and young people. Behind the scenes with a lot of the services involved, this bill will be looking at sharing data better between services, to inform better outcomes. This goes to the heart of one of the principles of this bill, about this Government’s social investment approach. We know that with vulnerable children and young people, if we act earlier, if we put the resources up front, and if we invest earlier, we can support these children to go on and be productive members of New Zealand society. That is why I support this bill to the House. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Huri noa ki a tātau katoa, tēnā koutou. In September 2009 the then Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, said that what we know is that young Māori who are connected to their identity and culture do not offend any more than non-Māori. Wāhine Māori and Māori people, for years, have been saying this very thing. The research backs this up, but we have known this for ever.

The starting point for us as a country should be that when tamariki Māori are with safe whānau Māori, they are at the strongest that they can be. That is the starting point of where our policy transformations, our Government support, and our State responsibility have to begin. The research backs this up, Andrew Becroft backs this up, Māori Women’s Welfare League knows this and has been saying it for ever, and social workers know this and have been saying this for ever. That is our starting point. When tamariki Māori are with safe whānau Māori, they are at their strongest, and when they are at their strongest, we, as Aotearoa, are at our strongest. So that is the starting point.

We will not be supporting the legislation that feeds into the dangerous narrative that Māori whānau do not love our children as much. I want to note that matua Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party have clearly put it on the table that they do not think that whakapapa is important. They do not have an understanding that the strength and the well-being of tamariki Māori depends on whakapapa. They are not mutually exclusive. We are not saying that we want Māori to be unsafely placed.

The Green Party understands intrinsically that tamariki Māori are strongest when they are with safe whānau Māori. All of our support and legislation and reforms should be geared with that starting point. It should be the inspiration of our nation. And I want to say that most of whānau Māori are safe. The narrative that we continue in this House by supporting this legislation, which wants to weaken the priority to keep tamariki Māori with whānau Māori—when we uphold that legislation, we are feeding the narrative that Māori do not love our children as much and that we do not understand how to properly and safely care for our children. The Green Party will not stand next to any legislation that upholds that damaging narrative. It is a narrative that States have upheld against indigenous peoples around the world for generations. The State manipulation to remove children under the sneaky guise that we are not strong enough to care for our children has been a damaging and proactive one all around the world. We know this. The Green Party knows this, and we will strongly oppose any changes and any proposals that uphold that racist narrative.

Instead of State removal of Māori children, we should be looking at State responsibility to ensure that all whānau have what they need to live good lives. That is when our housing is working, that is when our education is delivering, and that is when our justice system is not blatantly and systemically racist. That is when everything is working to ensure that families have what they need to live good lives.

I want to finish by congratulating the Hands Off Our Tamariki campaign, which has worked hard and has been holding meetings around the country for many months now, and is analysing how neglectful and violent our State has been as a foster parent. It has been researching and analysing that for a long time—Māori at the coalface, like Paora Crawford Moyle, like Moana Jackson. And I will finish—please, Mr Deputy Speaker—by acknowledging the many whāngai parents everywhere in our communities who, absolutely, have been taking on our tamariki Māori for ever. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Not one more of our tamariki mokopuna. I think that needs to be the position of this House.

My contribution today will focus on the updated objects and principles in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and I want to focus on where they came from. I would just like to read from section 13 of the current Act. Section 13(2)(b) says: “the principle that the primary role in caring for and protecting a child or young person lies with the child’s or young person’s family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group, …”. Where did that come from? Actually, it came from the report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare. If you google it, what it says is that it was “a detailed commentary and enquiry into racism within New Zealand society, and in particular within the Department of Social Welfare.”

The relevance of this piece of legislation to Māori is actually monumental. Between 1955 and 1985 there were 45,000 closed stranger adoptions. Most of those were Māori children who were placed within Pākehā families. Today we are talking about 5,000 children in State care—3,000 those children are Māori. So the relevance of this particular piece of legislation to Māori is huge.

I also want to quote from the Pūao-te-Ata-tū report, on page 7: “At the heart of the issue is a profound misunderstanding or ignorance of the place of the child in Maori society and its relationship with whanau, hapu, iwi structures.” Currently, there are over 26 references to whānau, hapū, and iwi in the Child, Youth and Family legislation. When this piece of legislation goes through, there will be only six, and the biggest issue that we have is that kin placements—or Māori children being placed within whānau, hapū, and iwi—will cease to be a priority.

In 2012 the Families Commission published a report by Dr Fiona Cram. It was a very interesting report, because what it did was look at children in care and it noted that, worldwide, indigenous children were overrepresented in child welfare systems. These were the reasons: systemic racism, the application of white, middle-class standards and values to indigenous communities, and also intergenerational fragmentation of the family and community structure. So, really, it was a commentary about the continued consequence of colonisation. Overrepresentation was exacerbated by structural risk factors, and those were poor housing and poverty. That context, I think, is incredibly important, especially when we try to answer the question: who is best to care for Māori children?

Well, from Pūao-te-Ata-tū, who is best to care for Māori children? It actually is whānau. Ultimately, it is the children’s parents. If they are unavailable, then we are looking at grandparents, we are looking at their aunties and uncles, or we are looking at siblings, cousins. But, ultimately, why do we want children placed within whānau? Because it is within whānau that we know who we are and where we come from. Who we are and where we come from is about our identity, and that is where our whakapapa is incredibly important.

Who helps answer that question: “Ko wai au?”. Ko Tongariro Te Maunga, ko Taupō Te Moana.

[“Who am I?”. Tongariro is the mountain and Taupō is the lake.]

Am I not really lucky? I can quote my pepeha. I know where my maunga is. I know where my awa is. I know where my marae is. I know who I am.

So, unfortunately, I think the implementation of the legislation has really been about shifting responsibility from the State to any other kin carer, and it did not matter who they were. What we have never done is fully implement the findings and the recommendations of Pūao-te-Ata-tū. Professor Mason Durie, actually, in 2006 presented to Treasury a whole lot of indicators of measuring well-being. But, central to that, was the capacity of manaakitanga, and that is about the capacity of the family to care for itself and for its tamariki and the mokopuna. And why is that so fundamental? Because, actually, it is about access to Te Reo, to tikanga Māori—to what makes you who you are.

So if we erode that from this piece of legislation, essentially, what we are saying is that as a Māori indigenous person of Aotearoa, we can go back to the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and place you outside your whānau, hapū, and iwi, and you can be brought up by some random, and that is in your best interests. Well, we refute that fundamental principle. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill in its first reading. It is good to see that, in general, we all agree that our current Child, Youth and Family system is not working. It is not delivering what we expect it to deliver for our young people.

Child, Youth and Family reform is a huge task. It is a huge task. It is about having a new operating model. It is about having a new approach that will be effective and that will be an accountable, child-centred system that will help us improve outcomes for young, vulnerable children. That is why the Minister for Social Development has already announced that there will be a stand-alone ministry to deliver this new approach. As this is a huge task, there is already quite a bit of work that is under way, and we have seen some other pieces of legislation that have been through the House complementing the bill that we have in front of us today.

In this whole thing, we know that it is a huge commitment. In Budget 2016 we saw a financial commitment to this. There was $200 million as an initial commitment to this reform, along with the $144 million that was an extra to Child, Youth and Family for its operation costs. It is really important to see that, actually, the system works for the people whom it is designed to work for. What we have come up with in this bill is after huge consultation with stakeholders. With that consultation we have identified issues, and we have also come up with a plan, which is a long-term plan to take us ahead and to help young children.

This bill is actually to reform the Child, Youth and Family system in a way that will deliver objectives that are around children who come into State care, because we want to get good outcomes for these children. We also want to see that there is a single point of accountability. With that single point of accountability we will know that all agencies are actually working together to provide the support that is needed for children.

So, overall, it is about early intervention, it is about addressing the needs of children—those who come from very, very complex family situations—and it is about using the data that we have from data sharing. I am really looking forward to what submitters have to say on this bill in the select committee process. So I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to start by speaking to the point that was raised by the New Zealand First MP Darroch Ball, and that was with regard to a briefing that the Minister for Social Development held for Labour MPs at 1 o’clock today on this bill. Actually, we thought that it was a briefing for all parties outside the National Party, so we were surprised to attend and find out that it was just for me, Nanaia Mahuta, and also Jacinda Ardern. We were unaware that that briefing was just for Labour MPs, and actually we do, and would, expect that a briefing of that nature would be given to all political parties so that when we come to debate it—particularly because this has been pushed through rather quickly—we are all on the same page with regard to background information. So we are disappointed as well that that briefing—that opportunity for a briefing—was not extended to other political parties.

I want to start on this bill with the parts that we do support before getting into the area—the major area—that we do not support. Labour has, as this House knows, for a long time been calling for the age of care and protection as well as of youth justice to be raised to include 17-year-olds, in alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. So we are pleased to see that this is being considered and incorporated within the Child, Youth and Family (CYF) reforms. It is also positive in this bill to see the Government again taking into account the recommendations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by enshrining the well-being of children as a central focus of the new ministry, Oranga Tamariki.

However, despite parts of the bill proposing a prioritisation of the interests of the child in State care, it goes against this overall concept by removing the emphasis on kinship care. At the moment priority is given to placing a child with a member of their family or wider hapū, or, if that is not possible, then with someone who has the same tribal, racial, or cultural background as the child. However, this bill removes that “whānau-first” preference. We heard one of the New Zealand First MPs saying that we were in some sort of la-la land for thinking that that could possibly work or that was the right thing to do. There is international evidence to show that it is the right thing to do. It should be enshrined in our legislation.

The problem is not with it being in legislation; the problem is the way in which it has been enacted and practised. Yes, the safety of the child should be the primary concern. So if you find a whānau member who is able to look after the child, firstly, you are going to assess whether or not that whānau member is then a safe person to look after the child. If that is not happening, then we have an issue with practice and the way in which it is enacted. It is not about putting that in the legislation. So the removal of section 13(2)(f) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act—the provision around kinship care—could significantly weaken the role of Māori in the care and protection of children.

So although there are some positive aspects to this bill, we cannot support it due to the overwhelming concerns we have in the proposal about the lack of incorporation of whānau, iwi, and hapū solutions in the care of children. The disregard for section 13(2)(f) goes against evidence both locally and internationally. We know that the best solutions for children include early intervention and the incorporation of iwi throughout the process. This is also true on an international level, as I said, with the prioritisation of a child’s cultural heritage being instrumental to their care. The new ministry must take into account the importance of culture in a child’s life, especially as to their identity and sense of belonging. As Green Party MP Jan Logie said when questioning the Minister last week, “for tamariki Māori their well-being is inextricably linked to their well-being of their whānau and hapū”.

There is also a strong need for a sense of belonging found amongst children in State care. This year’s State of Care report from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner stated that clearly. So, even through the conversations that I have had with National MPs, we all agree on safety, stability, identity. The other issue, of course, is being with family, with whānau—siblings, actually—as has come up in conversations. The report found that children and young people are already not given sufficient opportunities to build their sense of identity in the current process for children in State care. This can only get worse with the removal of the “whānau-first” section.

We are concerned that there has been a lack of consultation in respect of this bill. Around 60 percent of children in State care are Māori, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, yet there was not enough discussion with Māori groups and organisations that have experience in the care and protection of children. The Māori Women’s Welfare League has even raised concerns that the changes proposed in this bill could be in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and it did request that the bill not be put forward until it had been properly consulted.

Looking at the ethnic identity of children who are in State care, I saw, even with my own Pacific people, that Pacific children make up the third-highest ethnicity of children in State care, with 407 as of June 2016. In 2010 the Government’s pacific action plan specified an aim of keeping Pacific children and young people well cared for as part of a loving whānau. This was an acknowledgment of the different cultural upbringing and the importance and presence of wider family for Pacific families. Yet the removal of the kinship care section is far removed from this multicultural focus. There has also been a distinct lack of consideration given to Pacific groups and experts. The hurried nature of this current bill has meant little time for key Pacific organisations to consider these changes and provide input. It has been virtually impossible to find comment because it has gone through so quickly and people have had no time to consider the consequences of what this bill is putting forward.

This bill also proposes a requirement to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. However, this cannot be possible without the kinship care section. Although this bill proposes that it will be more child-centred, it fails to address the key issue of what in the current CYF legislation is not and where the system is failing. As is addressed in the departmental disclosure statement, there is currently no cause given for the need to change legislation. Without acknowledging what the current issues are it cannot be possible for this bill to improve the situation. The example I want to give is that the Minister has argued that the current legislation is being employed in a way that kin care is given as the only option—whether or not it is the safest and best option. However, in this case it is not the legislation that is the problem, but, as I said before, the implementation and the practice at a service level. This is where the change needs to occur, rather than the removal of a “whānau-first” approach.

The proposal to make this bill child-centred raises the issue of why the Government will not commit to making other key sectors that have an effect on a child’s well-being child-centred. Areas such as health, social housing, and social development are all oriented around policies and laws that do not put the needs of the child first. For the plight of children in hardship to be addressed, there needs to be a holistic and Government-wide commitment to putting children at the centre, not just in this one area but across the board. So it is unfortunate that the Minister has shown an unwillingness to do this even across her own portfolios, having dismissed my proposed amendment to the principles of the Social Security Act, which would have included a new principle that “primary consideration is to be given to the welfare and best interests of any child or children who may be directly or indirectly affected by the exercise of that duty or function:”. Why would any Government not want that to be an underlying principle of our Social Security Act?

So, as I said, we have some serious concerns. The final concern I want to share is in respect of data. The Privacy Commissioner has also raised several concerns about this. Firstly, the issue is not confined to this bill, but is slowly being implemented across the social development sector. Concerns have already been raised, from those who will be affected, about the Government’s current inability to deal with the data, the increased level of surveillance for those seeking help, and a potential reluctance from people in sharing information, knowing it will be held by the Government.

The commissioner highlighted the unintended consequences of this data-sharing clause, given that there is not currently a fully designed operating model for Oranga Tamariki and there has not been consultation with those who could be affected. The level of data sharing proposed could also risk the trust and rapport between case managers and their clients, potentially impacting on the level of support given. This proposed data-sharing is a part of the Government’s investment approach, which frames people and children as potential liabilities. The data collection, in itself, will encroach on the privacy of individuals and is akin to selective surveillance. On top of that, the data will be used to target those who are considered to be fiscal drains.

We know that the Government believes our young people are already “pretty damned hopeless”—thank you to the Prime Minister of New Zealand for saying that—meaning they are not interested in investing in our young people but, rather, in viewing them as financial risks. What a way to view our young people! It is really hard to reconcile those kinds of statements with the statements that come out of the Minister for Social Development, who says that it should be about being child-centred, when, in fact, it does not feel that way at all—

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

JONO NAYLOR (National): I was privileged enough to have lunch today with my 21-year-old son, and during the course of our lunch he reminded me that, actually, over the last 3 years, I have helped him shift six times. It is no mean feat, actually, because the last one involved trying to get furniture like beds up three storeys—it would not fit in the lift. Anyway, he seemed to be quite grateful for that. I thought it was probably a reasonable expectation that he could have of me as a father, that I would help him out. Although, I have got to say, six times in 3 years is pushing the limits.

I guess my point in telling this story is this: when we have children who are in the care of the State and we just sort of cut them off without any conversation—at the age of 17 in the past, and after the last piece of legislation it would have been 18—I do not think that is the State taking the level of care that ordinary parents would actually take for their own children.

I think what has been glossed over a little bit, because it has been sidetracked into other issues this afternoon, is the fact that we are looking now, in special circumstances, for certain people to be able to extend that level of care—where the State can still have some involvement up to the age of 21. I support that. It is what ordinary parents would do, and it is exactly what the State should do to ensure that the young people who have been in our care receive the very best chance that they can have going forward. I support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a first time.

The question was put that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee.

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

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.

Question agreed to.

Bills

Point England Development Enabling Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 28 April 2017. This bill forms part of the Government’s wide-ranging and pragmatic programme to address the challenges of housing in Auckland. At the core of Auckland’s housing issues is the supply of land, where we have seen section prices increase more than fourfold over the course of the last 25 years. The Government has a programme, with the special housing areas, special legislation around the new Auckland Unitary Plan, and the programme in respect of the large Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that is before the select committee.

Whether it be the major reforms that are going on in the area of social housing and the Government housing agency, Housing New Zealand, building the largest number of new homes ever, whether it be the HomeStart programme, which is providing the most generous support that has ever been provided by a Government for first-home buyers, or whether it be the changes that our Government has made around the regulation of building, all of those parts of the programme provide the long-term solution.

But the Government is also very pragmatic in saying that, where it owns land in Auckland, it needs to free up sites that are not being well utilised and enable them to be able to be utilised for housing. That is what this bill is all about. It is part of the Crown land programme. It is the ninth site that is now subject to housing development. That programme will provide for 1,500 homes, and each week I am announcing additional blocks of land that can be better utilised for housing purposes.

This particular block of land, and the purpose of this bill, is to enable housing development on 11.7 hectares of land on the Point England Recreation Reserve in Tāmaki, in east Auckland. I emphasise that this is only 12 kilometres from the CBD of the city. It is part of the city where housing need is at its most acute. I would note that 18 hectares of the Point England Reserve has been used for the last 30 years for grazing cows. I know—including yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker—that grazing land is an important economic activity for New Zealand, but I would hope that there was a consensus in this Parliament that using land that is so central to the city of Auckland, when we have got high housing need, for grazing cows is totally inefficient, inappropriate land use; that is what this bill will enable us to be able to develop for housing.

The bill is very similar to a bill this Parliament has already passed this year, the Riccarton Racecourse legislation, where we also had a reserve that was set aside over 140 years ago—for racing horses—and land that was poorly utilised. That land now has construction work begun on building 600 homes for the city of Christchurch. The Point England Development Enabling Bill, as with the Riccarton bill, recognises that although it may be extremely desirable to have a further 300 houses within 20 minutes of the CBD, the Reserves Act and the current zoning at the site provides a barrier to that being able to occur—thus the need for this bill.

The development land is Crown-owned but vested in Auckland Council as a recreational reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The land’s reserve status and zoning means it is restricted to just that use. The bill enables housing to be built on the development land by creating a new parcel of land from within the reserve with separate title, revoking that parcel’s reserve status, setting it aside for State housing purposes, and applying a Mixed Housing Urban zoning that will allow it to be developed for residential homes. The balance of the reserve, 33.3 hectares, will remain recreation reserve land, as will the council-owned beach reserve.

The Point England Development Enabling Bill enables housing to be built on that land by subdividing the 11.7 hectares for housing from the balance of the reserve, the creation of a separate title, revocation of the reserve status on that parcel of land, and requiring the zoning of the land to be changed from Public Open Space to Mixed Housing Urban. The development land will be connected by road to Point England Road and Elstree Avenue, will not encroach on the elevated headland or the eastern sports fields adjacent to the council-owned beach reserve, and will be set back from Ōmaru Creek.

I want to acknowledge Ngāti Paoa’s significant role in this development. They will have the first opportunity to develop the land for housing. The iwi became aware of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company’s plans at Point England in 2015 and brought a housing development proposal to the Government. Ngāti Paoa understands Point England as part of the larger area that was, in the past, well settled. There were houses and gardens, significantly supporting a Ngāti Paoa population all the way along the Tāmaki River towards the great pā at Mokoia.

Ngāti Paoa, despite promises by the Crown at the time—large tracts of Auckland were being alienated—had not retained land in these areas that were once so important to them. This is why this development opportunity also supports the conclusion of the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement negotiations, something my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, is working towards.

The iwi in Auckland, not all of whom have settled their claims, have been willing partners with the Government in trying to resolve the housing challenges in the city of Auckland. They understand very well the importance of housing to their people and the communities they are part of. As part of this development, we expect a minimum of 20 percent of the new homes to be social houses and a further 20 percent to be within that HomeStart price cap of under $650,000, but the details of that housing development are yet to be negotiated. Ngāti Paoa will pay fair market value for the land and assume the risks of the development. A further 2 hectares is being provided at Point England for the development of a marae as part of the cultural redress of that Treaty settlement.

Point England is also within the Tāmaki regeneration area, and that huge development, the largest redevelopment of housing anywhere in New Zealand, has the added challenge of being able to provide homes for people while the houses are demolished and redeveloped. The big advantage of this Point England development with Ngāti Paoa is that we are going to be able to have homes for those people to be able to stay in their home community while, at the same time, accelerating that huge redevelopment from 2,800 homes to 7,500 homes. This land is also subject to a right of first refusal under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau settlement legislation, and the bill will not interfere with that.

I would encourage members of the House to support this bill. It is pragmatic. It is about addressing the supply of land that is so fundamental to the housing challenge in Auckland. It really does come down to a simple question of whether this Parliament believes it is sensible that Crown land should have cows grazing on it, when we have such a high need for housing, and it would be the Government’s view that by working with iwi we can make better use of this land as well as reinvest that money to provide for a wonderful recreational facility and build a new community. I note that both the Government and Ngāti Paoa’s ambition is not just building houses but building a wonderful new community here at Point England.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e te tuakana, e Hau, kua tae mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare, hei whakarongo atu ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. He pire e tautoko kaha nei e Ngāti Paoa, e Ōrahi, o tāua rahi o te kāinga rā o Tāmaki Makaurau, kāti, ngā mihi nui ki a koe me tō whānau, ā, ki a koe hoki e Te Minita o mua rā, e kara e Rick. E mihi atu ana au ki a koe, pai te kite atu i a koe, e tirotiro mai nei ki ngā mahi e tutuki nei tātou i te rā nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge you, elder sibling Hau, who has arrived here in our House to listen to the first reading of this bill. It is one that is strongly supported by Ngāti Paoa and Ōrahi at that place of yours and mine, Auckland, and, suffice to say, huge salutations to you and your family, and to you as well, former Minister, colleague friend Rick. I salute you; how wonderful it is to see you looking down upon us here as we complete what has to be done before us on this day.]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to rise and contribute on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. It is not a very inspiring title. Although I take many of the points from the Minister, I would like to pick up on probably the last points he made about Ngāti Paoa’s involvement in this particular land development and how it is actually about creating a community. Those are the kinds of inspirational words our people deserve to hear in Tāmaki-makau-rau when we consider housing opportunities, not just for Ngāti Paoa but for houses that will alleviate the pressures and the stress placed upon Tāmaki-makau-rau at this point in time due to a housing crisis.

Let us be very clear about that: it has been a housing crisis. This has been a long, drawn-out debate about whether or not it is a crisis. Well, that might be the case with the Government at this point in time, but we have been very clear: it has been a housing crisis for a number of years now. And I want to commend my colleague Mr Twyford, who cannot be here to contribute to this first reading. But I do want to commend him for the work he has done in this space to make the issue more apparent to the Government, which seems to have been blind to it for so long.

This particular bill offers an opportunity not just for Tāmaki-makau-rau but, in particular, for Ngāti Paoa, and for that reason I am extremely excited. I am extremely excited because, as we have seen, these kinds of partnerships evolve over a number of years. The Minister mentioned the Tāmaki redevelopment opportunity that was had right next door to Point England. There are other examples of particular partnerships with Ngāti Whātua. There is another one down here with Te Ātiawa. They are good relationships to develop—these types of opportunities—not only for the tribe but for New Zealand. However, I think this one is another step in that evolution. I think this particular partnership provides a fantastic opportunity where Māori are given this opportunity to really drive it, to make sure that they work with their relationships, whoever is involved or concerned with the Point England development—that they act in a very Māori way. Ngāti Paoa have been very clear about this from the outset.

Many in this House have got up and stood to sing a song—whoever has spoken on a marae—and it is “Te Aroha”. Everyone knows the words. Some sing it really well; most sing it very poorly. But Ngāti Paoa have made it clear that, in their desire to develop this particular opportunity, they want to be working on the premise of aroha, pono, and tika—aroha, pono, and tika—to make sure that the foundations for this opportunity are actually a springboard not just for Ngāti Paoa but for all of the people in Tāmaki-makau-rau. So it is for these reasons that I stand to support this bill through to the next stages. We look forward to welcoming submissions and to welcoming commentary and input from the communities of Tāmaki-makau-rau and from those involved in housing development in the past and who wish to do so in the future.

This one is unique in some respects. It is unique in so far as it is a property development, for all intents and purposes. The public will see this as an opportunity to have more homes in Tāmaki-makau-rau. But I also note that, in this bill, there is a provision for 2 hectares to be put aside for a marae—for a marae. You ask any Māori—perhaps maybe not the new Deputy Prime Minister, Paula Bennett, who has already said she did not grow up on a marae, but if you ask most Māoris, you will know that a marae is at the heart of their community. A marae is at the heart of their community. So this bill provides for 2 hectares to provide Ngāti Paoa that opportunity to build a marae. And when you get the marae built on aroha, tika, and pono, and the kinds of values that we want to see in our community, you will find that the rest of the community will follow suit. You will find that the community will grow, and it will grow with a solid foundation. So I am excited by that particular opportunity—the 2 hectares being afforded to Ngāti Paoa to stamp their mark on what would otherwise seem like any other property development in Tāmaki-makau-rau. You can drive past property developments every day in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in my electorate, and they are just more houses that are going up. This particular opportunity at Te Tauoma is a fantastic one—one that will allow Ngāti Paoa, in partnership with the council and, of course, with central government, to provide for housing not just for their people but also for the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

The Minister spoke about the fact that although the finer details need to be discussed and debated, hopefully with not too much compromise on the part of Ngāti Paoa—although those details need to be fleshed out, I am encouraged by the kinds of numbers that are being afforded to affordable housing, to social housing. We hear of all these property developments, thousands of homes being built, but only 10 percent being used for social housing. Well, for the pressures that I have seen placed upon the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, Māori and Pākehā alike, who come into my office, 10 percent is just not enough. So as a kaitiaki of the Tāmaki-makau-rau isthmus and Ngāti Paoa, they are making that commitment to the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and that is something to be celebrated. That is exciting. So I am encouraged by that. There are, of course, many challenges. Let us not kid ourselves in thinking that this is just straightforward and awesome. Ngāti Paoa are going to get the opportunity—the Minister stated very clearly that Ngāti Paoa will get the opportunity—however, it will be at their own risk.

I want to say to Ngāti Paoa, to my relations seated in the gallery here today: kia kaha, kia tūpato, āta haere. Kia kaha—be strong. Kia tūpato—be careful. Āta haere—move forward progressively. Move forward to make sure that you are treading carefully as you progress, so that you do not fall into pits and get snagged by fish hooks and everything else that comes with property development, because, as most members in this House will know, property development is a very tricky game to get involved in. But this particular bill provides an opportunity and a start and the platform for Ngāti Paoa, for which we are grateful, and I am sure the people of Ngāti Paoa are, too.

I mentioned at the beginning Ngāti Paoa’s commitment to alleviating the housing crisis in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Housing is one of those key pillars in the conversation around poverty. It is not a coincidence that Sir Mason Durie uses what they call a whare tapa whā model. He could have used any kind of square shape, or anything with four sides, but he specifically chose a whare, he whare tapa whā—not just a tapa whā, a square; he said a “whare tapa whā”. So to have these kinds of opportunities to build houses, to make sure that the people of Ngāti Paoa, the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, Māori and non-Māori alike, get the opportunity to have that foundation, to have the pillar and security of a home, to make sure that issues such as poverty, which we can see right next door to Point England, in Glen Innes—we do not want to see that in this particular development.

Just in conclusion, in some of the notes here, there is a perfect, I think, description provided by Ngāti Paoa in their grasp of this particular opportunity, and it says: “Paoa taringa rahirahi. Paoa pukunui.” I think that is a fantastic way to conclude my contribution: to say paoa taringa rahirahi—be aware. And I know you are, and I know that the impacts upon your people and, indeed, your whenua will be at the forefront of the development moving forward. And paoa pukunui—this will provide the opportunity not just for Ngāti Paoa but for all of the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau. We support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is an honour to rise in support of the Point England Development Enabling Bill in this, its first reading. Just with regard to the member opposite who has just resumed his seat, Mr Henare, thank you very much for that contribution. I actually agree with most of what Mr Henare said, apart from his criticism—his cheeky criticism—of the title, Point England Development Enabling Bill. This is an enabling bill, this is a pragmatic bill, and therefore it deserves a pragmatic title. I think it is a tribute that this is a Government that is committed to getting more families into warm and affordable homes, and that commitment involves partnerships with iwi to do so.

If we look at the Point England reserve in the traditional sense, as a reserve, it is not complying with its traditional values as to why reserves have been set aside. If you look at that reserve, with cows grazing on it, 20 minutes from the CBD, it no longer fits those values. So this, as I said, is a pragmatic bill where the Minister has said: “Let’s look at this. Let’s do something about it, and enable a housing development on 11.69 hectares of that land to be worked through, to provide warm and dry housing for families.”

And with that partnership with Ngāti Paoa, it is wonderful that the proceeds of that market-value sale will go back into that community specifically, to start developing amenities, and as Mr Henare said, with 2 hectares of it set aside for a marae. That marae will be the heart of a community, to bring people together, to create an environment that is supportive around the need for providing affordable housing and a dry, warm environment for those people.

I am not going to dwell on this first reading any longer. As I said before, it is a pragmatic bill. It is special legislation to make sure that we get this development through. It is one of nine Crown land housing site developments and the sixth in Auckland. It is designed to address the need of increasing housing supply where demand exceeds supply, and we are committed, as I said before, to getting families into dry, warm, affordable homes. With that, I commend this bill.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Labour will be supporting this bill because we will support any piece of legislation that is going to be about building more affordable homes in Auckland. What we on this side of the House recognise is that there is a housing crisis and that first-home buyers are locked out of the market, and it does not make sense to use prime land for grazing cows when it could be used for affordable housing. The development will also be a great opportunity for Ngāti Paoa as a developer of the houses, so it is good to see their historical wrongs addressed through the right to build houses on this land and the provision of 2 hectares for the development of a marae.

Ultimately, this is only 300 homes. Auckland is building 8,000 homes per year fewer than it needs. The Government needs to step up and build more affordable houses. In fact, the new Prime Minister, Bill English, needs to show how he is going to fix the problems Key papered over—problems like the housing crisis, which John Key refuses to acknowledge is real when the rest of New Zealand knows how real it is, particularly in their own lives or in the lives of families who are struggling not only to buy homes but to get affordable rentals, or to find homes where their children can be healthy, because of the state of some of the homes that have not been repaired by that Government.

We recognise that, with this development, it will mean a loss of green space for the community, and the Government will need to work closely with the council to make sure that there are adequate facilities for recreation in the area. What we also recognise is that this is actually the ninth project in the Government’s underwhelming surplus Crown land scheme. Let us just point out a few of the other underwhelming ones.

We have got Nick Smith, who promised 500 hectares of housing, with the first houses being built by the end of 2016. Here we are at the end of 2016, still only just confirming the sites. We are unlikely to have even a fraction of 500 hectares developed, and they have not even started building the houses. The second example of the underwhelming nature of that Government when it comes to housing is that the early sites it identified for the Crown land scheme included ridiculous places it could not build on, including cemeteries, substations, and the Governor-General’s house, of all places. The third example of underwhelming housing schemes that I would like to use is the programme that was set back months by the Government’s refusal to recognise Ngāti Whātua’s right of first refusal, resulting in a legal challenge.

Peeni Henare: High Court.

CARMEL SEPULONI: High Court, as my colleague Peeni Henare has said. So it has been underwhelming.

At the moment, whatever we can support, no matter how underwhelming it is, we must support, because we do have such a huge housing crisis. It has spiralled out of control under that National Government. We have got first-home buyers, as I said, locked out of the market, and 41,000 people are homeless. That number has increased significantly under the National Government, and those members should be ashamed of themselves for it. New Zealand’s rate of homeownership is the lowest it has been since 1951. In fact, for the Pacific community, which has the lowest homeownership rate now, it is something like 18 percent. The Auckland house price has more than doubled since National took office, to over $1 million, and the crisis is now spreading around the country. As people move out of Auckland because they cannot afford to live there, the house prices in other parts of the country are starting to skyrocket as well.

So this is not just an Auckland issue. The housing crisis is a national issue. In fact, it is a National Government issue, if it would only recognise that. One in seven Auckland houses are now sold to major property speculators; 78 percent of renters cannot afford a deposit on the average New Zealand home—this is over a million people locked out of homeownership; 35 percent of offshore speculators pay no tax on their rental properties, because of tax write-offs; and English and Bennett are focusing on selling off State houses instead of building new ones, despite the Horowhenua and Invercargill sales falling through.

I saw a really good example of what is happening with Housing New Zealand and State housing when I was in New Plymouth recently. There was a development that was meant to take place—Jonathan Young is in the House. He has done nothing to address this issue. There was a development that was supposed to take place. It was promised back in 2008 that those houses would be bowled down and that new houses would be built on that land, and that there would be a higher rate of provision in terms of Housing New Zealand houses. Instead, it is now 2016, 8 years later, under that National Government, and nothing has been done—except that some of those houses have been knocked down. Some of them have been boarded up, but nothing new has been built there, and there is less of a provision of State housing than there was when that Government started.

When I put through an Official Information Act request to try to find out why that was the case, I got the response back saying that there was no demand for Housing New Zealand houses. There is demand for Housing New Zealand houses. You only need to speak to the emergency shelter in New Plymouth, member for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, and you find out that it has had a 33 percent increase in the number of people having to access emergency shelter because they are not able to access Housing New Zealand housing or any other housing.

The only reason that it looks like there is less of a demand on Housing New Zealand is that the Government has made it harder to get on the Housing New Zealand register. It uses that as a reason to not develop the houses. It is disgusting to think that in the context of this national housing crisis, here we have these empty, boarded-up homes, as well as houses that have been knocked down—so a whole lot of land free where houses could be built by the Government to house these people who need housing—and yet nothing has been done. The member for New Plymouth should be ashamed of himself for not advocating for his constituents like he should have.

Pointing out all of those things, I also need to just point out the fact that Labour does have a plan. This housing crisis is real. We recognise that. We have got a plan to address it. Labour has committed. We committed a few years ago. We continue to maintain this commitment to ensuring that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, affordable home. We take that so seriously that a bill was put in under our leader, Andrew Little’s, name. We have talked about the fact that we will be building more affordable homes—100,000 over 10 years. The Government thinks that that is too aspirational, but we do not think it is too aspirational. We think it is achievable, actually, because we are the party of aspiration. We have talked about fixing Auckland’s planning rules—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: The party of desperation.

CARMEL SEPULONI: —cracking down on speculators, and giving more support to those in need. That is real aspiration. That is real aspiration, and that is what New Zealand wants to see: a political party that will actually address the serious issues and challenges that we face as a country. I see Jonathan Coleman yelling at me from across the room. There is a reason he was not selected by his colleagues to be leader of the National Party. There is a reason, so maybe, just for the next couple of days, he should potentially just sit there quietly for a little while and reflect on whether or not he is actually as popular as he thinks he is. Thank you very much.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I just want to say that in order to have an aspirational party you need aspirational people, and I do not see any across the way. I see nobody, because the aspiration is all over this side—it is all over this side.

This is a very good bill. I am really pleased that I am standing here during the first reading and speaking on the first reading of this bill. It is part and parcel of this Government’s housing plan. Auckland has a big housing issue, and we are adding another 300 more houses in partnership with Ngāti Paoa, as part and parcel of the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement claim. Of these 300 homes, 20 percent are going to be social housing, and another 20 percent are going to be affordable homes. That is on 11.7 hectares; 33.31 hectares of the remaining land will remain as a reserve. It will remain as a reserve, a green space. The member opposite said that there would be no green space; well, that is a load of rubbish, because there will be. Two hectares, yes, will be for a beautiful marae built by Ngāti Paoa—built for them, by them. I think that that is an amazing feat for Ngāti Paoa.

As I said, my speech is only going to be very short, because I think that everything that is going to be said on this side of the House is going to be a tribute—a tribute—to the people of Ngāti Paoa and to the Minister for Building and Housing, who has shepherded this bill and many of the other housing projects through this Government. Therefore, without any further ado, I commend it to the House. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. There is a great deal about it that we think is wise, most particularly the partnership relationship with Ngāti Paoa and their involvement in housing development as an iwi. We think this is the right kind of approach, or at least the right kind of relationship to be taking with iwi around the country, as in Auckland, where iwi are directly involved in housing.

There are some issues that we do have with the bill that I just need to address as part of the Greens’ contribution. I am expecting that a number of those concerns will be dealt with effectively at select committee, and we are looking forward to engaging in the select committee process over those concerns. One of the major concerns we have is that the special housing areas policy has been a dismal failure. The whole policy, actually, is crashing and burning. It has not delivered anything like the housing that was promised. When Nick Smith talked today about “over 7,500”—that is a promise of some housing, sometime in the future, 10 to 15 years away. The Government has delivered very few actual homes under the special housing areas policy. It keeps making promises based on projections of homes. I do not know how it is making those projections, but the fact is that New Zealanders and Aucklanders are certainly seeing very little come out of it.

Part of the concern that we have about this bill is its relationship to special housing areas, particularly the removal of the Resource Management Act (RMA) from involvement in the decisions, and therefore, actually, the removal of the rest of the community from the decisions that might affect them with this development. It is not particular to the iwi partnership; it is actually just part of our concern that the special housing areas are being used by Government as a means to remove the RMA from planning. The results of that mean that we have often very poor quality housing. We certainly do not have anything like the amount of housing that we need to see, and there is no guarantee in that process for the housing to be affordable.

The legislation itself is silent on the provisions for affordability, and there is no reason that it has to be silent. The special housing areas policy has been silent on that matter, as well. There is no reason that this bill has to continue to propagate this idea that the RMA has no place in planning for housing. It does have a place. The communities that live around that area do have a right to be involved, and there can be some more engagement under the RMA in this legislation. On top of that, it is critical that we continue to have real engagement with communities about the housing that they will be putting up with—that they will be living with. They will be living in the communities that are being formed.

There is also some real concern, as I said, about the affordable housing provisions. In the Riccarton legislation, as I understand it, there was provision there for a financial payment if the numbers of affordable houses were not built; so there was a performance standard required in the Riccarton legislation, and there is no reason why there should not be one in this legislation as well. It is not a sufficient trade-off to have reduced regulatory management of housing developments for no guarantee of social housing. This is the argument, right? It is that we need more housing and we need more affordable housing. Therefore, there needs to be some give and take around the planning rules, and therefore we will remove the RMA from its involvement in these planning processes around this housing development, because there will be affordable and social housing.

But if there is no guarantee of it, then the public is just being asked to give up its right to have a say and to give up the resource management requirements around consultation, public engagement, and environmental assessment for nothing—essentially, for developers to be able to get very cheap and very fast access to public land for the purposes of building homes that they can then sell for a significant profit. There has to be something in the bill that will provide some certainty that there will be affordable housing and that, if there is not, there will be some kind of penalty for that. The public is entitled to some return for what it is being asked to give up.

Finally, we understand that there have been a lot of concerns, as I understand it, from the iwi involved in Ngāti Paoa, and also from others, around the pollution of the river, and that there has been a lot of effort put in to doing clean-up work. There is also a significant nesting area for dotterels and oystercatchers in this area as well. I have spoken to Ngāti Paoa about this—just about our concern to make sure there is an adequate environmental assessment of the effects of this development or any runoff or anything, both on the river and also on these nesting sites. As I understand it, they are quite happy for that kind of assessment to happen, and it should. It is a little bit unclear at the moment as to who should be responsible for that assessment, and the bill provides no clarity around who is responsible for that. We will be wanting to have that conversation in the select committee, with those who are developing, with Ngāti Paoa, with the council, and with Government. We have to make sure that there are some bottom-line protections for the natural environment there. The overall proposal is very good, but there are still some concerns about environmental protection and environmental restoration, and as I understand it, Ngāti Paoa too is concerned about that and wants to make sure that the development is really good in that area.

I will not keep the House any longer. I think that the proposal for the relationship with Ngāti Paoa is, by and large, very good. The details, as we know—especially when Nick Smith is responsible for legislation that involves Māori—require some care—

Marama Davidson: Monitoring.

METIRIA TUREI: —monitoring, yes. Ha, ha! Some monitoring of the detail is required, because there is a history there. We will be doing that as part of our management of this bill as it goes through select committee and the rest of the House. We will be looking for some changes, to make sure the bill goes well. All our best to Ngāti Paoa, who, I understand, are here to hear the debate on the bill. I am looking forward to talking with you more. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will also support the bill—as far as the select committee, at least. I would like to say at the beginning that it is always very difficult to agree to the loss of reserve land, because the whole point of land being reserved is to stop the sort of ad hoc reversal of that status that we are actually seeing in this case. It is very easy to take reserves away; it is almost impossible to get them back.

New Zealand First is very concerned about the loss of such a large part of this reserve. Eighteen hectares is about one-third of the total—if you take into account the 45 hectares altogether, plus another 3 hectares of adjacent council land, it is about one-third. It is a big chunk of a very big reserve. Even though that 18 hectares is already fenced off for grazing and is not being used for recreation, that does not mean that it would not be needed in the future, and that it should not be kept as a reserve for that purpose for the longer-term future. That indeed is the very reason reserves exist.

Reserves of that particular size are very hard to come by, so its loss must be very seriously considered, so New Zealand First will support this proposal only to the select committee stage at this point in time. We want to hear from people who are affected or who have whatever it is to say on this particular proposal. We want to hear their submissions and we then want to decide, rather than trying to make a final decision right now.

New Zealand First is very concerned about the loss of such an important area of reserve land, but we are also extremely concerned about the chronic need for more housing land in Auckland, and especially for the provision of smaller sections for modest, lower-cost homes—and, even more especially, provision for social housing and State housing. This land clearly is suitable for that. It is close to public transport, and it is close to central Auckland, so we would have no difficulties in that respect.

In fact, New Zealand First policy is for direct Government intervention in the housing market, both to provide State housing, and to provide sections and homes at the lower end of the scale. We feel that commercial developers provide well only at the high end of the scale and not the lower end, so there tends to be a big gap not met by the market. That leaves far too many Kiwis without homes that they can buy or rent for reasonable rentals. Of course, we say that this is all greatly exacerbated by the scale of immigration that has been allowed by this Government over several years—massive immigration, which can only have a very adverse effect on an already troubled housing market. That scale of immigration is quite clearly and definitely opposed by New Zealand First, but that is not the subject of this bill.

This bill is otherwise consistent with our policy to use suitable Crown land or local authority land for housing. We would set up a commercial entity, which we would call Kiwi Housing, to acquire land and, where appropriate, to use existing housing land to create a land bank where demand clearly exceeds supply for sustainable residential development. We would want that entity to control all aspects of that development, which would be aimed at delivering smaller, high-quality new homes with appropriate land densities to provide good social and transport outcomes, and to optimise the use of prefabricated homes to minimise costs. So we would get smaller, cheaper, good-quality homes. In addition to that, we would sell residential sections on the basis of a long-term agreement for sale and purchase, up to 25 years to first-home buyers, with a low interest rate on it, and other terms and conditions that would make it easy for people to buy their first home.

This particular bill is similar to the Riccarton Racecourse bill, which the Minister for Building and Housing mentioned. It was passed recently with New Zealand First’s support, because there the reserve for racing and other purposes was also preserved. That proposal did have excellent public consultation, which showed significant public support. New Zealand First’s continued support would depend on excellent public consultation—in this case, demonstrating significant public support.

In the case of the Point England land, there is good reason to believe that there may be such support, that the adjacent recreation reserves would not be affected, that there are not unsettled Treaty settlement barriers, and that there are no barriers to the offer-back requirements, which would remain in place. New Zealand First looks forward to the public consultation, just to see what else might come out of the woodwork, what other problems there might be, and whatever people might think about the proposal in any respect. We need to be assured that there are no significant unknown barriers to the proposal, and we would need to be satisfied that low-cost or social housing will be provided as an essential and definite and achievable result of this proposal. We do presume, at this stage, that that will be the case.

We do note, however, that the proposal will allow for only about 300 homes, when Auckland needs 140,000 homes within the next 10 years. That is a huge number to provide for. We know that this Government has failed dismally to come up with anything like a comprehensive plan to address the scale of that need. This particular proposal is only a drop in the bucket compared with the magnitude of the demand caused by National’s policies in action and its open-door immigration policies. This proposal is a drop in the bucket, but nevertheless, in itself, is worth supporting. So, for that reason, New Zealand First will support the bill as far as the select committee. We will then hear what people have to say and make a final decision.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill, in its first reading. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith on bringing this bill to the House. This is an example where we can see the Crown and marae working together for the betterment of the people of New Zealand.

I am a bit lost with the contribution from the previous speaker. In one breath he was saying that we will be losing the reserve and we should not be developing these kinds of sites. In the next breath he said that it is close to modern facilities, transport, and schools. So I am confused about what he wants to say—whether we should be making this kind of a contribution or not.

Denis O’Rourke: The member should have listened to the speech; then he might have understood.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Then he should be clear in what he wants to say. In the next breath he said that he is against migration. I really feel sorry for my good friend Mahesh Bindra, who is part of New Zealand First. He is also a migrant, like me. So we need to understand that migrants bring a lot of contributions to this House—not only to this House, but to the economy. We should understand—

Denis O’Rourke: National’s housing has been a dismal failure, exacerbated by excessive immigration.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: You should appreciate what immigration is doing for this country. We bring a lot of investment. We bring a lot of skills. That is why we have got all the migrants coming to this country. New Zealand First is against it. So, with these words, I commend this bill to the House. I hope all the parties will be supporting this bill.

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. This is a good bill, the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and, on the face of it, it holds some genuine promise, I think. I am particularly pleased to be supporting Ngāti Paoa in their partnership of this bill. They are wanting to develop land, much of which was previously used for grazing cows. Homes, not cows, seems like a good idea. I want to spend a bit of time just comparing a few of the other failed initiatives, why this bill is important, and why the Green Party is actively supporting this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, notwithstanding some of the concerns or just conversation that the Green Party would like to have with different parties and the community in allowing the bill to get to the select committee.

This bill is good. It is land that, as my colleague Denis O’Rourke has also pointed out, is near good community infrastructure: schools, the town, shops, and public transport, for sure. At this point I think I will just quickly signal my delight in my particular connection to that community over many years. This is partly why the Green Party will be seriously monitoring the Minister’s responses and responsibilities over this development. For many years the Green Party has wanted to stay connected to the voice of the community in Point England, in the Tāmaki region, and including Glen Innes.

For many years I have stood on the very banks of the Ōmaru River, which is a part of this proposed development, and have supported the community call to clean up the pollution in that river. I have personally stood with those who have had to be evicted from their State homes. That process has been a failure, and the delivery of that process has also failed. I have a connection to the community. We cannot ignore this—the Green Party will not ignore this—as we continue to monitor this development.

I want to congratulate Ngāti Paoa on their initiative, on always knowing that this land could be used in a better way, and on wanting to be a big player in that. Part of why this is a better proposal than many that the Government has put up, which the Green Party has opposed, is because of the direct partnership allowance that is able to happen for mana whenua. The generosity of mana whenua in having to depart with funds to claim back their own land, as part of the redress, should not be undermined here, and that has happened all around our country. But certainly the initiative, the generosity, and the vision of Ngāti Paoa is what I am most proud to stand up and support today.

What I also like about this bill is that, unlike other State sell-off legislation that the Green Party has opposed, it does genuinely guarantee and uphold Te Tiriti partnership with mana whenua. We have not appreciated the guise of selling off State homes, with the support that would enable iwi to be a player in those State homes. That sort of legislation, where there is a chance that iwi can be in the seagull pack of all the other people trying to bid for some of those State homes, which are mostly in shocking condition, is not good legislation.

This bill here, on the face of it, has some real promise. We certainly want to keep an eye on the affordability, the good quality design, how it is going to impact on the ecology, and the social housing provision as well. But I have more faith in Ngāti Paoa being able to uphold those qualities. Certainly the Minister has not been able to put up quality solutions—most of his plans have failed. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I realise that I stand before David Shearer’s valedictory statement and dinner, so I will come right to the point. The Labour Party supports this bill in its first reading.

Secondly, I am reminded of a saying by my elders “E le’o le fale, ae o le anofale”, meaning the house is not the only thing that is important here. What is more important is what we use the house for—for families, to keep them warm and to keep them safe, to give children a sense of confidence and a sense of stability, and to keep children off the streets, so that they have a home they can call their own. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that if this Government continues to deny that we have a housing crisis, we are not going to solve the problem long term. We are not going to solve the problem long term. See, the numbers that it has thrown up—20 percent social housing and 20 percent affordable housing, meaning 60 percent is commercial housing—do not add up. We have got approximately 42,000 people living in homeless situations—living in cars and in garages—whom we need to take off the street and into homes. Those numbers do not fit. The number of about 1,500 overall does not comply with what the financial institutions are saying, which is that Auckland requires 13,000 houses to be built now.

The third point I want to make is the fact that Ngāti Paoa have come on board. They are building these houses, obviously. They have a social conscience. But this Government does not have a social conscience. It needs to recognise, firstly, that we have a housing crisis, and recognise that we are not just going to build boxes; we need to build communities. We need to give a sense of confidence to those families.

The final part is that I heard the Minister say that affordable housing was in the vicinity of $650,000. Come off it! How can $650,000 be “affordable housing”? Not at the rates of pay that this Government has created for the majority of working-class people up and down this country. So those members have got to do better. They have got to do better.

I am glad that it has been the Labour Opposition—I take that back. It has been the general Opposition of this House that has held this Government to account and has forced it to do something about this housing crisis. But those members do not believe that there is a housing crisis, so they still meddle around with the numbers. Until they adopt the policy that this Labour Party has put up of 10,000 houses a year for the next year 10 years, it will never solve this problem. So, although we support this bill going to a select committee, we need to keep challenging this Government to do far better.

The final point I want to make is this land was reserved years ago as reserve land for the wider community. The money that it makes on this, I have heard the Mayor of Auckland say, ought to go back into building other facilities that will help support a strong, capable community in the Point England area in terms of going forward.

So it is not just about building houses. It is about recognising what this is for—strong, healthy, safe families—and that is what the Labour Party is about.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Very quickly, this particular bill is actually a very good example of the comprehensive plan that the Government has on housing. This bill is also a great example of the Crown working with Māori for this development.

The incredible thing is that in one fell swoop this bill is going to free up underutilised land in Auckland, it is going to increase the housing supply that is needed in Auckland, and it is also going to enable Ngāti Paoa to build their economic base.

So ka pai to the Minister for Building and Housing, ka pai to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and ka pai to Ngāti Paoa. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Mr SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 360(3), I call on David Shearer to make his valedictory statement. I understand it is the wish of the House to suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of the statement.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Tēnā koutou katoa. The last valedictory statement in this House was delivered by my friend Phil Goff. He seems to have started something of a trend, but our speeches are going to be somewhat different. Phil’s lasted almost 30 minutes—1 minute for every year he spent in Parliament. So, following his lead, mine is going to be short and sweet.

I would like to start by congratulating Bill English and Paula Bennett. Bill proved this week that perseverance certainly does pay, and I wish them both my very best wishes. Good on them. I would also like to acknowledge and thank John Key for his service to New Zealand. I believe he showed courage in standing aside when he did.

You know, it is worthwhile looking back over your maiden speech when you depart, and compared with the ambition at that time, my achievements do look a bit lean. I have not been in Government, I was not in Cabinet, and I did not even get to be Prime Minister. As the song goes: “Regrets, I’ve had a few.” But the goal is always to leave maybe with a few regrets but without bitterness. That is how I leave today, because, in so many ways, my political journey has been immensely satisfying.

First, it has been a privilege to be a member for Mt Albert. It is a real joy both to live in my community and to contribute to it. I have given many forgotten and forgettable speeches in my time, but I do remember the people who have come into my office seeking support and whom I have been able to try to help out. Voters in Mt Albert sit all over the political spectrum, yet they took me to heart as their MP. But there is always the odd exception. I remember standing outside Edendale School one day at 3 o’clock, as you do, handing out leaflets. A woman walked by and muttered something insulting as she went to pick up her child. She came past me again, tugging her 6-year-old boy behind her as she walked, and he looked up and waved: “Hello, David Shearer!”. Sadly, I will be out of here before he gets to be of voting age. To the people of Mt Albert: thank you for your support. Sorry to cut out so early compared with my predecessors.

Being an MP is an extraordinary vantage point to see and understand your own country. I have been privileged to meet many great people. I have particularly enjoyed—because it has been new to me—the access to businesses, to scientists, and to innovators that many people in New Zealand never get to meet. We have such wonderful talent out there.

The reason for my attachment to the Labour Party is quite heartfelt and very simple: over the past century, no other institution has shaped New Zealand more and how we see ourselves as people. We take its boldness and its achievements for granted. But my fascination has always been with what went through the minds of those leaders before their landmark decisions, before they launched into the unknown. How did Michael Joseph Savage feel before pioneering the social safety net for New Zealanders in a world where it had never existed before? What was Kirk thinking before deciding to send a frigate into Mururoa Atoll? Or those who sought to take a risk to settle Māori grievances right back to 1840? The Waitangi Tribunal is, I want to say, an institution that has been extraordinarily healing in our country. Simultaneously it is a truth commission, it drafts history, it acknowledges wrong, and it compensates for loss. I actually think we should export it; the world needs it more than anything else.

But those nation-shaping decisions, and others, relied on courageous people who stood up in spite of what the polls said or the focus groups. They were big, they were visionary, and they occurred under Labour. They were about being progressive. So if I could make one teeny-weeny, wafer-thin criticism of this Government with such immense political capital, I think it could have been more ambitious.

Our economy still resembles the 1960s. My first speech as Labour leader focused, I remember, on our need to broaden our economy beyond primary products. Other like-sized countries—Denmark, Singapore, Israel, and, Mr Brownlee, even Finland—have overtaken us. Our science, technological, and creative endeavours still await the step change they deserve. It is, perhaps, actually our biggest challenge in this country.

My second speech as leader advocated a living wage. I think the debates over tax cuts miss the point. The most fundamental way to address inequality is actually to lift wages. Right now our taxes, effectively, subsidise those who choose to pay low wages. A woman stopped me in the street a couple of weeks ago and said she had returned to New Zealand 5 years ago and was struggling to get her small business going. “I’d have made more money buying a house in Sandringham,” she said. Yes, I do believe we need a capital gains tax. We now spend more on pensioners than on educating our young. Yes, I do think we need to address the age and cost of retirement. The average price of houses in Mt Albert exceeded $1 million quite a long time ago, actually. Yes, I do think it is time for the Government to get in and build houses.

I believe in free-trade agreements, because we will always have greater opportunities and strategic leverage being connected rather than being disconnected at the bottom of the Pacific. Free trade can concentrate wealth, though, and it is the job of Governments to ensure that prosperity is shared and that inequality is addressed. If there is one thing that Brexit and the US elections have shown us, it is that Governments can no longer sit back in their sort of laissez-faire splendour, as they have done for the past two generations.

Being Leader of the Opposition is the toughest job in politics. I can tell you that nobody knows without doing it quite how tough it is. And, of course, everyone around you is the world’s expert on what you should be doing. So, Andrew, I wish you all the very best. I think you possess the personal qualities that this job needs.

For me, the Labour leadership was a highlight and, ultimately, obviously, a disappointment. It is a huge privilege now to have my photo on the caucus room wall alongside many of my heroes. And I am not going to go into the whys and the hows of what happened—there is a whole cottage industry of people out there who can do that—but I want to thank the people who did put their faith in me and stood by me. Sadly, I think we were at our best at the end.

To Fran Mold, my chief of staff, in particular, who was fiercely protective of me and who has become a good friend, I am particularly grateful. But there are other people I want to acknowledge and thank. The staff around Parliament always show incredible courtesy and friendliness, and I thank them. A special acknowledgment to the staff of our world-class Parliamentary Library, which I use so much—they are great. To those journalists dedicated to actually reporting the news, thank you. You serve us well. Claire Trevett said she is putting a few people together tomorrow night, just as a sort of a farewell. I thank you for that, Claire.

Thank you to my parliamentary colleagues. I wish you every success next year. It is time for a Labour Government to go boldly, as our forebears have done. And remember, wherever I am, whatever I am doing, I will be with you in spirit.

A special mention goes to Damien O’Connor, who came up to me during the 2011 leadership contest and asked whether I was going to stand. I said I was not sure I would get more than one vote, and he said: “Oh, I’ll vote for you.”, and so I threw in my name. In these contests, you understand, two votes are vastly superior to just the one.

To my electorate committee—Phil Harington, Carol Symington, Dave Fowlie, Jan-Maree, and others who stood by me and did not waver, I owe you a great debt of gratitude. To my staff, I also want to offer my thanks—to Raewyn Tate, my first executive assistant. I will miss Hannah Sperber’s warmth, her fine mind, and her wonderful sense of humour. Therese Colgan came to me after working with Helen Clark—baptism by fire. Five foot nothing, of Irish descent, she is passionate and she is tough, with a huge heart, and she has made a difference in the lives of so many in my electorate.

Alec McLean, who is here in the gallery today, worked for Muldoon before the Beehive was built. He has worked for Sir Don McKinnon, for Helen Clark, and for many others. When I became leader, he took a pay cut and joined me from the Governor-General’s office, and when I stepped down, he took another pay cut and came with me. Apart from his clear lack of financial acumen, it has been great working with him, and I thank him. He retires with my departure, and I thank you, Alec, for your service, not just to me but to Parliament in general.

I am blessed with a handful of true friends and a tight family. I want to thank my brother, Alan, and my sister, Gillian, and my friends Mark and Cam for always being there. My daughter, when she was about 11, said to me: “Why are people so nasty and rude to you?”. I said “I think it’s because I’m a politician.”, and she said: “They should remember that you’re a human being, as well.” It is tough for kids to see their parents attacked through the media, and it is impossible to hide it from them. When I came into Parliament, my kids, Vetya and Anastasia, were at school, and today they are young adults, and I am immensely proud of them. My wife, Anuschka, has simply been my rock, and I thank her.

Many years ago, some friends and I followed the Nile River on a boat down to Juba, in the south of Sudan, and from there we paid a Somali truck driver to take us for 4 days across the south of Sudan and into Kenya. At one of the stops, we were in the back of the truck and we were peeling mangos and throwing the skins and some stale bread we had not eaten over the side, and a dozen kids below us were fighting, we found, over our rubbish. It was probably the only food that they had had that day. It had a profound effect on me. It spurred me into humanitarian work around the world, and I have been privileged to work side by side with some wonderfully dedicated people.

So when I received a call a couple of weeks ago offering a position in the same region, I did not hesitate. It was, in many ways for me, completing the circle. My hope, as always, is that I can make something of a difference. And, wouldn’t you believe it? When I was in New York last week, I remembered I had a bank account there.

Politics, for some, is the book of their life. For me, it has been a chapter. At one point, I hoped it might have been multiple chapters. It is time for me to start a new chapter. So, with that, I will say goodbye. I have enjoyed my time here immensely, and I enjoyed most of all, I think, the comradeship that I have had across all of the parties. I wish you all and your families well for the Christmas break and the holidays, and whoever wins next year—and, obviously, no prizes for guessing whom I will be backing—take care of my country for me. And, for God’s sake, be bold. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Point England Development Enabling Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Kia ora tātou katoa e Te Whare Pāremata. Thank you for this opportunity to take this call on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. Labour is dedicated to ensuring that our families have safe, warm, affordable homes. It is a base—having a house, that is—from which families can build and ensure that their children are safe. In Government, Labour is committed to building thousands of affordable houses for our whānau, for our children and tamariki, and for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Labour is supportive of this bill to the select committee because, particularly in Auckland, we know that we are facing a housing crisis, a housing crisis that has been blown up under the watch of this Government, and a housing crisis that is spreading across the country like a virus, unfortunately, at this time.

This bill has been designed to enable housing development on 11.69 hectares of land within the Point England recreational reserve of the Tāmaki estuary. This reserve is owned by the Crown; however, it has long been held and vested in Auckland Council as a recreational reserve. It is land that is zoned as a public open space. The area includes sports fields, it includes a walkway, and it also includes recreational facilities. However, a portion of this reserve, near the CBD and major infrastructure in Auckland, is underutilised right now. In fact, it is currently fenced off as grazing land for cattle. The bill that is being proposed, which we have before us, will allow a range of houses to be built on that prime land, with the balance remaining as a recreational reserve providing public spaces for this area, which we know is facing considerable intensification in both the short term as well as the medium term.

With regard to local government, the development on this particular land will mean a loss of green space for the community. The call from the incoming mayor, His Worship Phil Goff, as well as from councillors and from the chair of the local board, is that all proceeds from the sale of this piece of land should be reinvested in new and improved public open spaces for the local community. Given the expected growth for this area, the desirable facilities, and the social infrastructure that will be needed for our future generations, this is a call that I fully support.

With regard to the local iwi, Ngāti Paoa, this proposed development is a great opportunity for Ngāti Paoa as a developer of houses on their land. They have the right to purchase and develop this land for housing, under the right of first refusal, and Ngāti Paoa already has an agreement with the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company to build houses on this 11.69 hectare site. It is, indeed, fantastic to see that at least some of the historic wrongs will be addressed, through the right to build houses on this land by the local iwi. They will also be providing 2 hectares of the land to develop a marae. It is at least a step in the right direction. I would like to acknowledge the aspiration that Ngāti Paoa have for their grandchildren and for the return of their ancestral lands, and I wish them well in the future.

When it comes to affordability, however, we know that in Auckland especially affordability is something that is debatable right now. The average price of a house in Auckland is over a million dollars. One of the criteria under the special housing accord is that affordable houses should sell in Auckland for no more than 75 percent of the Auckland region’s median house price. But that median house price was close to $900,000 as of October. It is a 5 percent increase on the previous month. As we saw in the New Zealand Herald’s coverage yesterday, in terms of Auckland’s housing affordability: “To get a KiwiSaver first home grant on a property (up to $5000 for an individual or up to $10,000 for two or more buyers), it must be priced under $600,000, up from $550,000 in August. But the latest QV estimated median values show this increase has done little to make even houses in the cheapest areas within reach of many first home buyers.” Bernard Hickey, in the New Zealand Herald yesterday, is quoted as saying: “Across the rest of the country house prices continue to hit new highs.” There is also the other issue, which is an effect of housing being so unaffordable in Auckland: homelessness. We know that there are at least 41,000 people who are homeless. Thousands of them are homeless, living in cars, garages, and other places in Auckland.

Although this bill is worthy for several reasons, it is only going to enable the development of 300 homes. The sad reality that we see in Auckland is that it needs to build thousands of homes, new homes, to be able to house the demand that we see in that city. The basic truth that we know is that too many of our people are locked out of homeownership.

There is also another issue: the issue of a skills gap. We know that the major providers in construction and infrastructure got together with Auckland Council, way back in 2013. They wrote a detailed report and they presented it to the Cabinet Minister of the time, the Hon Steven Joyce, basically setting out that in Auckland alone they are going to be short by at least 32,000 skilled people just in construction and infrastructure. Before we can rebuild our own houses, including in Auckland, we would need skilled people.

I believe that there is only one party that has a comprehensive housing proposal that will deal with Auckland’s housing crisis, and that is the Labour Party. We look forward to the day when we will come into Government and we will be able to implement our comprehensive housing policy. Thank you so much.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I rise to take a call on this bill because I think it is fundamentally important to the redevelopment of the Auckland area. I have been quite interested in housing—to find out what is going on up there. I have been up to Auckland a number of times to visit a number of housing developments. I have been to property developers to see what they are doing privately, where I have seen developments of 1,000 to 2,500 homes. I have seen developments that include having to build the road, having to bring the water, having to bring the power, having to put the lights in, and having to put the footpaths in, all by the developer. What that means is that before they can even build a house, the section is now costing $400,000 to $500,000. We have not even started to build a house yet, because the Auckland Council cannot afford to put the infrastructure into those areas.

Then I have been to see a social housing development, where we are building a hundred-ish houses. I have been to see mixed social housing areas, where we are building a mixed tenure of houses—some high density, some low density, some affordable ones. But here is the thing: we are requiring only 10 percent of those houses to be affordable, and the property developers I have met have said that “affordable” is about $475,000. They take a loss to get that in there, but they are building a thousand homes, and every single other house in that development is the minimum $900,000. If you get 10 percent and build 100 houses, that is 10 houses. We do not have a problem with houses just on their own; we have a problem with affordable houses. If we are building houses that are already priced out of the range of people who can already not afford them, then we are not actually solving anything.

In Point England, why this is significantly important is because there we have an iwi who is about to take on a development plan where, yes, there are these 300 houses, but right next door there are possibly another 2,000 houses. They can decant people out of their homes into the new homes, instead of just pushing them out on to the streets somewhere, maybe—I do not know where—and then build some homes. They are thinking about the community they live in and they have seen the developments, at Ngāti Paoa. Here is the thing: I have been down to social housing developers, private property developers, and mixed tenure developers, and none of them are building an adequate number of social houses—of affordable houses—except for one that I have seen, or two now, and one of them is this development at Point England by Ngāti Paoa.

Who is building houses to help the people who most need them? Māori are building houses. When I talk to the property developers, they say: “Marama, why the heck would I take a section that I put all the infrastructure into, and build a house for $300,000 and get $30,000 out of it, when I can put a $1 million house on it and get $100,000 out of it? It does not make fiscal sense to do that, Marama.” So they then stick to the 10 percent limit that they have to, and what does that provide? It provides a 2-bedroom home with low specifications inside, no internal garage, but maybe a carport or maybe not—a car space next to the house. That is what $475,000 will buy you.

But wait. You have to have that house for only 2 years, and after 2 years you can take that house and sell it on. You can sell it on and immediately get $1 million. Why would you not do it? You have to fit the income criteria to get that house in the first place, but that on-selling is already happening. In the first lot of apartments that were built on one of these property developments, they first sold them 5 years ago for $500,000. They are now being flicked on for $1.3 million. That is for an apartment in the middle of a property development where every other house in that area is $900,000.

Here, I am supporting this Point England bill because, finally, we have a developer with a heart. It is an iwi who has given up the land they fought to get back in the Treaty settlement so that, under first right of refusal, they can provide low-income, affordable houses and rental accommodation for the people who most need it. So I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be reported to the House by 28 April 2017.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

Second Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa e hui nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei pō. Ka nui te mihi ki a tātau i tēnei, te āhuatanga ō wā tātou kōrero ka kōrerohia i te pō nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Acknowledgments to us all gathered here in our House this evening. In regard to the tenor of our contributions delivered this evening, I applaud us all hugely.]

I move, That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a second time. By way of introduction, as we do, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill restates and reforms the law relating to Māori land. It is a major step in the journey to recognise and enhance the mana and tino rangatiratanga Māori have always exercised, and continue to exercise, over our whenua, resources, and taonga. At its heart the bill will protect the right of Māori land owners to retain, control, occupy, and develop their whenua themselves as a taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations.

The bill is based on the fundamental principles that Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa, that tikanga Māori is fundamental to matters involving Māori land, and that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land. The bill is also grounded on the idea that Māori land owners have the right to decide for themselves how their land is governed and how it is used, to take advantage of opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations, and to have disputes managed in a way that maintains and enhances relationships among the owners and members of the whānau and hapū.

I wish to acknowledge the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done in its thorough consideration of the bill and I thank the committee for its contribution to this significant piece of legislation. It is a huge piece of work that required a lot of time and effort to hear submissions, to do the analysis, and provide the select committee report, which I will talk to shortly. In keeping track of the select committee process, I know that members looked right into the detail of the bill—as they should—so it is no surprise that the report is fairly comprehensive. I want to thank the chair, Tutehounuku Korako, and others of the select committee who participated in and, indeed, took leadership positions on the committee as it went through the process.

I would also like to thank everyone who provided feedback on the bill. That was important in terms of getting an understanding of the key issues that people felt needed to be addressed. In the end, the select committee, I believe, received over 152 written submissions from individuals, trusts, incorporations, and other professional groups and organisations as well. So I thank all of the submitters. The submissions covered a wide range of topics associated with the bill and I understand they gave the select committee plenty of food for thought.

As I indicated in the first reading, this bill is one of the most important measures for Māori that this Parliament will consider in our time, and it is fitting that it has received such careful scrutiny and consideration. The select committee has recommended several changes to the bill that, taken as a whole, are intended to improve the bill’s clarity and effectiveness. In reflecting on the report, it is my belief that the framework and policy reflected in the bill remains sound. This bill will bring about a significant change in the way the laws of our country reflect and provide for matters of fundamental importance to Māori and the way our laws relate to concepts embodied within tikanga Māori.

It is my view that most of the amendments made by the select committee are of a minor nature or are technical in nature. They include some additional cross-referencing to make it easier for people to navigate through the bill, and I believe that these are sensible contributions and, most importantly, contribute to the bigger picture of the bill.

There are a few amendments that are more material and should be mentioned. At its heart this bill addresses matters of Māori land tenure, which differs markedly from other forms of land tenure and has its own unique features. The matters addressed by the bill include a modern and sensible approach to the law relating to whenua Māori and whenua tāpui. The bill provides clear frameworks for Māori land owners in decision making, dispositions of Māori freehold land, governance arrangements and representation of owners, succession, and disputes resolution.

I want to give an overview of six of the most important changes recommended by the select committee. First, there is a change to the second-chance mechanism—that is, a process owners can use if they cannot reach the required quorum for a meeting. The change is to address concerns that the second-chance mechanism could expose Māori land to decisions made by a small minority of owners. The Māori Affairs Committee makes a decision under the mechanism conditional on two things: firstly, that the Māori Land Court is satisfied that the decision complies with the Act and, secondly, that the decision helps the owners to retain, occupy, or develop their land for the benefit of present and future owners.

The second matter is that all Māori who own land on the day that the bill commences will be treated as being associated with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori. In order to succeed to land or to be entitled to own land, tamariki will now have to show a whakapapa link to those owners only and not to previous generations of the owners.

Third, a high level of owner involvement will be required before a move can be made to consider revoking a governance arrangement. Previously, such a decision could have been made or been initiated by one, single owner.

The fourth issue is that when people need to determine whether whāngai and adopted children are to be regarded as descendants of their parents, they need to first consider the tikanga of the respective whānau before looking to the tikanga of the hapū. The tikanga of the iwi, which was referred to in the bill as introduced, is no longer relevant.

Fifthly, the Māori Land Court will have various remedies available when investigating the conduct of a governance body, as this was not clear in the bill as introduced. Lastly, it is spelt out in a far clearer fashion that the judges of the Māori Land Court will continue to be appointed on the advice of the Minister for Māori Development, after consultation with the Attorney-General.

The bill deals with a number of matters that support Māori land utilisation and development, such as changing the framework for valuing Māori freehold land and giving councils more workable tools to deal with rating unused and unoccupied land. I can say that work is continuing on other matters, such as providing better solutions for landlocked Māori land, improving the way the rating system works for Māori land, and addressing issues with the Public Works Act. Officials are also in the process of designing the Māori Land Service, which will provide practical support to Māori land owners so they can achieve their aspirations and take full advantage of the new legislative framework.

I would like to thank members of the select committee for their hard work, and I would also like to acknowledge everyone who has engaged constructively with the select committee throughout its consideration of the bill. I note that a minority view was attached to the select committee report. I have read the minority view, and in my view the points raised have either been addressed as part of the select committee’s recommendations or are being dealt with through ongoing work that my officials and I, and other Ministers, in fact, are engaged in at the present.

So, in closing, this bill, as I said earlier, is the most significant bill that will ensure our laws support the retention of Māori land and Māori ownership for generations to come and will ensure our laws recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga in relation to whenua Māori. I look forward to the constructive debate that the House will have on this significant piece of legislation during the Committee stage. This will provide an opportunity for members to discuss the features of the bill as well as the changes proposed by the select committee.

So I thank, again, members of the select committee for the work they did. I know there was a considerable amount of time put in. I appreciate the effort that everybody did give to this bill, knowing full well that it is a major piece of legislation. I look forward to the Committee stage, when we can get down to the nitty-gritty of the bill and have everybody’s views expressed about—clause by clause—all the details that came up in the whole process. I close and say that I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Labour will not be supporting this bill, not because Meka Whaitiri had some kind of road to Damascus conversion to mindless and spiteful opposition, but simply because it does not live up to what its intention was, and that was to provide tools to Māori land owners to better utilise their land.

I have brought this large pile as a demonstration of the amount of paper—the reports and the submissions—that the Māori Affairs Committee received, and I do want to support what the Minister for Māori Development said around the work of the select committee. It is a very comprehensive bill, very comprehensive, and in true honesty, as a member of the committee—well, not actually a permanent member, but a member who subbed on throughout the consideration of this bill—I can definitely attest to this side of the House, particularly, having been very constructive members of that select committee to make sure that where we could make some changes to the bill we would definitely make those suggestions, and the Minister has acknowledged them.

I do want to say there are some good points in this bill. Obviously, the rangatōpū option becoming optional—before, it was almost mandatory—has been a big change. But it was interesting to note during the select committee process that certain Māori organisations came to the select committee and wanted opt-out provisions, so we have made some amendments in the bill for certain organisations to opt out. The Minister mentioned the second-chance mechanism, which is in clause 51(8) in Part 3. I will not go into that. The Minister also touched on the clarification around the whāngai relationship, which is in clause 8. I want to also acknowledge—and it is not a new provision in the bill—the existing provision in the Act that talks about the retention of the 75 percent threshold if land is to be sold by all the owners. That is not a new provision, but it is retained in this bill as a commitment to retaining land. And, of course, the Minister talked about the judges’ appointment.

I want to actually refer members to those who appeared before the select committee. We had approximately 150 submitters; about 47 appeared before the select committee. I too want to add my word of thanks for the many—large, small—legal people who presented very compelling and passionate submissions to the select committee. I just want to pull out a couple as a way of saying why we believe the intent of the bill is a just intent—i.e., to provide the tools to Māori land owners to better utilise their land—but we have reservations around the pace at which this has gone from the intent to this particular stage of the bill, in terms of the second reading.

There are a lot of other issues with the bill that I hope to address in my contribution, but let us just turn to the Māori Land Court judges and their submission. On page 2 of their submission, this is what they said: “1. The Bill is a high-risk approach to critical law reform affecting the taonga tuku iho that is Māori land. 2. The Bill will undermine existing Māori property rights. 3. Key assumptions underpinning the Bill are flawed. 4. Aspects of the Bill do not align with tikanga Māori. 5. The Bill mainstreams Māori Land and the Māori Land Court.”

I heard the Minister say that many of the views put in the minority view are addressed, but I refute the position that the Minister is taking. The Māori Land Court judges have not submitted just once on this bill; they have submitted several times—once, twice, three times. In fact, I recall that it was their submission that the Minister tried to prevent being admitted during the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Rubbish. Come on, Meka.

MEKA WHAITIRI: No, that is correct. That is correct.

But let us move to another submitter. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission, in its submission, paragraphs 23 and 24 on page 8, said: “Given the Government’s human rights commitments as regards the implementation of UNDRIP, the Bill should both reflect and advance its principles.” and: “In the Commission’s view, the application of the UNDRIP principle of free, prior and informed consent reinforces the Tribunal’s finding that the Bill presently does not have a sufficient mandate amongst Māori.” I have given you two quotes, and there are many that are contained in our minority view where we said that major people had opposition to this bill.

So when I come down and look at what the selling point of this bill was, it was actually having the tools to enable Māori land owners provided by the Māori Land Service. Yes, the Minister has noted that that is work that is still progressing, but one of the fundamental underpinnings of this particular major land reform was the creation of a Māori Land Service. Yet the committee heard during the submission from the group that is working on the design that the business case is not coming to the Government until April 2017. In April 2017 the business case is being presented. There is no guarantee that this Government is going to commit ongoing funding, let alone take the recommendations of a business case that is not yet public. That is of real concern.

We have concerns about the Māori Land Service around the delivery capability, particularly when the intention of the Māori Land Service is to take over the succession orders of the Māori Land Court, a new dispute resolution service—which I do want to acknowledge the Māori Land Court believes we need—and the registry services that are currently found in the Māori Land Court. These are major capabilities that Māori land owners are looking for some detail on, and yet they have not been provided with it.

There is also the issue of fees—fees that have not yet been determined—so that Māori land owners might know what they are up for when they go to get succession orders. I thought that might have been really fundamental. There is also a very clear lack of a transition plan in the Māori Land Service as we move from the administrative services of a Māori Land Court into the Māori Land Service. We have no transitional plan. That is hugely risky to Māori land owners as to whom they are supposed to deal with. When you look at this bill and when you read the clauses and the various parts of the bill, you actually see the removal of some of the powers that were in the Māori Land Court.

I want to pick up the earlier point around the delivery of capability, because at this current moment the Māori Land Court is under restructuring. Some 30-odd very senior managers within the Māori Land Court hold a lot of this very important knowledge on behalf of local Māori land owners, but their jobs are going to be disestablished at the end of January. So the issue around a proposed entity yet to be established, the Māori Land Service, we totally support, but in the process, again, that this Minister, particularly, is going down, we ask him to give some surety and some safety commitments to Māori land owners that as it morphs from the Māori Land Court into this new Māori Land Service, which is yet to be determined and designed, their rights to their land, their rights to their succession, and their rights to information around their land are safeguarded.

Look, in my closing, I have tried to outline why we are not supporting this bill. Can I just, with the indulgence of the House for a couple of seconds, acknowledge that 20,000 houses in Gisborne lost power yesterday. I have just received a note that they have got the power back on. I want to just say thank you to the Eastland Network lines mechanics who worked overnight into the day to bring the power back. Can I also send my condolences to the family of the two who lost their lives tragically in the plane crash.

Labour cannot be supporting this bill. We stand by the reasons why, and it is up to the Minister and the Government to prove how this is going to benefit Māori land owners. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I begin by acknowledging David Shearer, who I think is one of the nicest people in public life I have ever met, and I wish him all the very best for the future.

Tonight is very important because it marks another step—a very significant step—towards a much-needed, long-awaited reform of the law relating to Māori land. I acknowledge my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, who I believe is the greatest Minister of Māori Affairs or Minister for Māori Development since Sir Apirana Ngata, and his record is very, very impressive. I am very disappointed in the crummy minority view that was presented to the House on this bill by, among others, Pita Paraone, who should know better.

These are fundamental reforms, because it is often misunderstood why it is necessary to make special provision within our laws for Māori land. Māori land tenure is entirely different from general land tenure, to begin with. It is not derived from the Crown through a system of estates; it is derived from ancient customary rights that have their basis in tikanga Māori. Māori have always said—but without always being heard by lawmakers—that within Māori culture there is a unique and special connection with the land, and I hear it time and time again as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Māori land ownership is about stewardship and connection rather than proprietorship, and it is about permanence rather than transience. After a long line of statutes that have tried to characterise Māori land in terms of English-derived land law, we finally have a bill that recognises these different and special characteristics of Māori land.

Can I say something about the report of the Māori Affairs Committee. I note that the committee considered more than 150 submissions, travelled around the country to hear nearly 50 submitters in person, and gave extensive consideration to the bill. The number of submissions is less than half the number received last year, when an exposure draft of the bill was released. This clearly demonstrates, not only for this legislation but for other legislation, the value of the exposure draft procedure, which I, as the Attorney-General, am responsible for, and the very positive response by the Minister in addressing the points raised by submitters before the bill was introduced. I would like to see, in areas of complex law reform, more use being made of the exposure draft approach, because I think it is a much better approach than simply introducing a bill and referring it to a select committee. So I encourage that for all Ministers of this Government.

One of the recommendations made by the select committee is to include an explicit provision that judges of the Māori Land Court are appointed on the advice of the Minister for Māori Development, after consultation with the Attorney-General. That recommendation became necessary as a consequence of what seems to have been a concerted campaign of misinformation. Where the inspiration for this unfortunate campaign came from entirely escapes me. Judges of the Māori Land Court have always been appointed on the recommendation of the Minister for Māori Development and his predecessors in that portfolio, after consulting the Attorney-General, and nothing in the bill as introduced changed that. The reason it was not explicitly stated was, with respect, self-evident. It was an acknowledgement of the constitutional separation between the executive and the judiciary, which is a fundamental characteristic of our democracy—there should be nothing that could create the perception that judges are somehow beholden to Ministers. So it is surprising, to say the least, that the primary push for the change recommended by the select committee appears to have come from the Māori Land Court judges themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people in this country do not recognise the importance of the separation of powers. It is something that comes up time and time again, and I personally—although accepting what the Māori Affairs Committee said—am disappointed that such a self-evident proposition needed to be spelt out, because the separation of powers is something that is very important, and I hope that the Māori Land Court judges accept that. It is important to record that this bill continues to recognise the Māori Land Court as a legal institution of great importance, where Māori land owners can get access to justice. It is a difficult area of the law. It requires judges who know something about the law, and it is very important work to be done by the judges, and not simply when they have got spare time from dealing with issues in the Waitangi Tribunal. This is why, of course, they were appointed as judges of the court—to do this work.

The bill enhances the standing of the Māori Land Court as a court of law by freeing it from administrative and management tasks and ensuring it has jurisdiction to deal with a wide range of legal issues, with powers and remedies available to it that would normally be associated with the higher courts. And exactly these reforms occurred in the early 1980s with the High Court, and then a couple of years later with the District Court, but when it occurs with the Māori Land Court, somehow it is some kind of plot to undermine the Māori Land Court, and I say, with the greatest of respect, that that is utter nonsense.

Some people have been led to believe that the current Act works well and does not need to be changed.

Meka Whaitiri: Who says that? Who says that?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: But under the current Act there are still thousands of owners who remain disconnected from their land, and Meka Whaitiri, as the MP for her seat down the East Coast, should know that. It is one of the reasons why the late, great Apirana Mahuika asked me to start this project, so Meka Whaitiri cannot be doing a very good job in her electorate if she does not understand that. Fragmentation is actually getting worse, not better. Some trusts and incorporations are doing well, but too many, I say to Meka Whaitiri, are struggling. There is little in the current Act for all those small unmanaged blocks, and there is nothing in the current Act to help owners with dispute resolution.

Some people do not see any benefit in having a whole new Act, and to them I say that under this bill owners will finally be able to set the rules, making it harder to dispose of Māori land. Owners will finally be able to design their own governance arrangements. There will be access to tikanga-based dispute resolution, and the law will finally recognise that the mana of decision making sits with the owners and not with the court, and that is timely and it is overdue.

We can finally do something about getting a better deal for Māori land owners on things like rates, paper roads, and landlocked Māori land. In my time as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I have seen it time and time and time again that landlocked land is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, which is why Mr Flavell and I have actually been talking about it and working on the issue. Take the Rangitīkei District, for example, where 20 percent of the land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Much of that land is landlocked and it has acted de facto as a means of dispossessing Māori from enjoying the benefit of their land, and things have to change.

These are just some of the things that make this bill such a significant and important reform, and one that deserves the support of this House. So I too acknowledge the hard work of the committee and the constructive and well-considered recommendations made by the committee. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the officials, especially John Grant, one of the finest public servants with whom I have worked over the years.

The bill returns to the House with improvements that align well with the overall aim of this reform, bringing clarity to the more complex areas of the bill and responding fully to the points that were raised by submitters. It is unique in this House to be considering a bill that has had the benefit of more than 20 in-depth reports and reviews, 3 years of careful development, 171 hui, wānanga, and workshops, 581 written submissions, independent analysis, three exposure drafts, a Waitangi Tribunal report, specialist technical input, and a ministerial advisory group, as well as a thorough examination by the select committee. And Meka Whaitiri says that is not enough—what a load of rubbish. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to make a contribution in the second reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill in the House, and—as many in the House would know—there are several things that Māori will be absolutely passionate about: women, children, and land. We have debated the issues of women and children this afternoon. On the issue of land, it is, I think, of particular note that not since 1993 has a serious attempt to try to look at land legislation and how it affects Māori been approached.

The way in which that has been done is arguable. Minister Finlayson identified the exposure draft process as a positive way of trying to float ideas for reform and to engage the public on that front. We would argue that although it might be a preferred process on paper, in reality when you are dealing with a dense bill with some complexities—especially around the issue of land; Māori land in particular—the exposure draft process confused many people. They were (1) people who may not have been engaged in their own land matters or, with respect, they may have had a very low level of understanding in total about the Māori Land Court; and (2) the way in which the consultation around, or wānanga, had been promoted—again, things became very feisty. There were issues around levels of participation and levels of real input and engagement into the process but also death by iteration in the legislative process. So people were kind of catching up with iterations to the bill as the wānanga were going around and as things were being taken on board. So I think for a bill of this level of density, it would be arguable about whether or not the exposure draft process is useful.

The Minister also identified the way in which the bill will seek to improve the participation of those disconnected, non-engaged Māori land owners. As my colleague Meka Whaitiri has identified, much of the reliance of getting this right will fall to the Māori Land Service. We had a very good presentation from those who were designing the process about what the intent is. I want to acknowledge that, because if there is anything through this process where owners, per se, will derive a lot of a value, it is actually in their support and assistance for their governance arrangements and decision making—the administrative aspects around succession.

However, Labour is very sure as to why it will not support this bill—because it is still in design mode. In fact, the business case has not yet been approved by Ministers—at least, not when we were briefed. Although there has been a Budget allocation for the establishment, fundamental to that is the establishment of the IT platform, on which information is key and is yet to be determined. So the way in which Land Information New Zealand tackles that process—again, it is yet to be determined. How will the Māori Land Service be established? Will it be—and we asked the question—a part of Te Puni Kōkiri, a part of the Māori Land Court, or a stand-alone agency? It is still yet to be determined.

Those things lead us to believe that although it is a very good idea, co-designing it in situ with legislative reform is probably not the best way. In fact, probably what could have been done was to set up the Māori Land Service, keep aspects of the Māori Land Court chunking through, as it has been, and get the service up and running, because many would argue in favour of this service. We are not confident that in the short time frame leading into an election, the service will give Māori land owners, who are supposed to benefit from the service, the greatest level of assurance.

The other thing that the Minister identified was the role of the Minister for Māori Development to appoint Māori Land Court judges. We understand what the convention is—in fact, Parekura Horomia appointed several of the current Māori Land Court judges who are currently sitting on the bench. However, what led us to think that it needed to be specified within this bill were changes to the Judicature Act. We thought that it was better to be clear and to ensure that the Minister for Māori Development has a key role in identifying the skill and capability of those going to the bench of the Māori Land Court, and that that be very well set out in the legislation and very specific.

The other issues that the Minister raised in regard to those outstanding matters—which we all agreed around the select committee would fundamentally improve the utilisation of Māori land—are addressing the issues of rating Māori land, landlocked lands, and formalising paper roads, to name a few. We were informed in the Māori Affairs Committee that there is an enabling work stream that is currently in progress to try to work through these matters. The only aspect of rating that has been incorporated into the legislation is around the Mangatū decision and formalising some of those adjustments, but nothing else. To give assurance that the intent of the legislation around utilisation tackles those issues at the heart of what Māori land owners themselves have raised—those are the issues, and they are outside the bill. So, again, there is a question mark for us around those particular things.

Coming back to the substantive issues around the ture whenua Māori, I think my colleague has set out the reason why Labour is taking the position it is. We had to balance up whether the issue of utilisation went hand in hand with the primary responsibility to protect Māori land. Knowing the realities of what is out there in our own communities, when we are talking about non-engaged or disconnected Māori land owners and the high level of intensive support required to support them to be in control of their own decisions, we erred in their favour. We erred in their favour.

Those Māori trusts that currently have governance arrangements that are currently working quite well—in fact, they informed the select committee: “We are doing quite well, thank you. Leave us alone.” Those ones that were doing really well actually wanted exceptions in the legislation. The only addition that we added to that was Tuarōpaki Trust. Most Māori trusts that have got a trust order were happy with what they were doing; they kind of want to just tick over in the way that they are doing.

The other aspects of vulnerability we felt—especially for those Māori land owners who did not have governance arrangements—were around the participating thresholds. I am pleased, Minister Flavell, that you accepted the recommendations of the select committee around the second-chance provision decisions and the protections there. We believe that that was a positive aspect to what was in the bill—it gave greater confidence. Also, I note the issues of ensuring that there were higher thresholds around revoking governance agreements—so you could not just do it because of a little tiff within the whānau, or whatever.

Anyway, that said, the committee spent a lot of time on the issue of succession—I think the substantial debate will come through the Committee stage—and a lot of time on the issue of whāngai and the practical ways in which that could, and should, be considered. Minister Flavell, you have commented on that. Can I assure you that the advice that we received from your officials was top class. In fact, the Māori Affairs Committee has probably recommended some of their templates for briefings to other groups that come before our committee. Actually, New Plymouth District Council comes to mind. It could do well to follow the templates that we had in this instance.

Finally, the point that I would like to highlight is that nowhere within the bill was it contemplated in terms of identifying how and whether the Resource Management Act and the changes to the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act could interlock with this legislation, or may or may not impact on it, given that there have been changes that have been happening. To some extent the select committee is responsible for that. We did not pursue that, perhaps, with enough vigour, but I do want to identify that it may be a future issue coming up when we think about the utilisation of Māori land and the way in which changes to other principal Acts fundamentally impact on the way that this legislation is read.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Ka pai.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Whew! I managed to get that all out.

In closing, can I thank our own Nuk Korako, because he has been highly constructive on this particular bill when we have had some very heated differences of view, especially towards the sharp end of the business stage of this process. He has facilitated the conversation in our select committee to a high degree. He has enabled us to pursue all the information requests, so there can be no criticism on that front. In the end, whether or not we agreed was a matter for our own determination. Our clerks of committee I believe served us very well in helping us to co-construct our report, which we are presenting here in the second reading.

So I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, like you know, that you do the best that you can, and it is what it is. Labour will not be supporting this bill any further. There are some significant thresholds that we just cannot see will benefit small Māori land owners, those who have no governance arrangements, or those who need the greatest support, because much of the solution sits in the Māori Land Service, which is still being co-designed. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): E mihi atu ki a koutou, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou. Thank you to all of the previous speakers, particularly the two Ministers, and members of my Māori Affairs Committee. Thank you to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the previous speaker, also, for really critiquing the incredible journey to date that this bill has actually been through. I understand that we have always tried to be principled and pragmatic, so I think the real debate will come in the Committee stage.

I just want to first of all acknowledge a lot of the consultation that has gone on around this bill. It has been extensive. I mean, the whole process before reaching the House, we have heard about in previous speeches. In fact, it has been through 16 drafts. What we have here in this bill today is 495 clauses and 12 schedules, as well. So, looking at that, and looking at the very comprehensive way that it has been done, in fact, I think it is probably the most consulted-on bill I have seen during my time in the House, anyway, which has been quite short. But it has been a long process.

As a result of that preliminary work and consultation, the decision was made to introduce a new, stand-alone bill, and I think this is one of the major milestones of the bill. Originally, perhaps, it was a review and amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, but then it was decided that a stand-alone bill would be developed. However, the bill does also need to repeal and amend some other Acts, and it is entirely appropriate, I think, that these parts of the bill will become a separate piece of legislation alongside what will become two main Acts: Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and Te Kooti Whenua Māori Act.

The select committee process for the bill has been a long one, as we have heard. We have spent a great deal of time considering the bill in detail and consulting with officials, and I want to acknowledge, again, the officials, as has been done by previous speakers—particularly Tāria Tāhana, and John Grant, as well.

When we look at the consulting, we had over 150 submitters. Of those, 47 were actually heard in person. But I think it is also worth pointing out that these submitters to our select committee actually represented the views of many more Māori with interests in Māori land, as many of the submitters whom we heard from were actually making their submissions on behalf of very large groups of Māori. I think of the Federation of Māori Authorities, which represents over 250 members, and also the Māori Women’s Welfare League, etc., etc. Even though it was a small number of submitters, it was how many people they actually represented, as well.

So, as a result, the Māori Affairs Committee recommended a number of amendments to the bill. There are a couple that I just want to—I know I have got only a very, very short time, but there are two parts of the bill that I have personal experience of, and that is why I want to cover them. One of them is actually around the two main changes. The first one was to change how descent and relationships are determined, and that descent factor is very, very important. One of the core principles of this bill is that tikaka Māori should be used in determining matters related to Māori land, and the bill as it came to us would not have done this in the case of determining descent relationships that involved adopted children. However, we believed that it was more appropriate and more in line with the core principles of the bill to defer to the tikaka Māori and allow it to override anything to the contrary in the Adoption Act.

The other part I wanted to cover was that we have also recommended that the relevant tikaka in the situation would be that of whānau or hapū, with whānau taking precedence. This is important because in the original bill, it was actually the tikaka of the iwi that was used.

Another amendment that I think is a particularly good one is a change in how the bill deals with the owners of Māori freehold land who are minors. We recognise and respect that in our other property laws a minor does not have the ability to enter into contracts related to land. However, we do not want to see situations where the interests of a minor who owns Māori freehold land are ignored, even if they are a significant or majority owner. Our recommended amendment alleviates this by allowing a property manager who has been appointed under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to vote on behalf of a minor.

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill represents a major change, as was highlighted by the Minister for Māori Development. It is actually about the utilisation and the retention of Māori land. A huge amount of work and consultation has gone into the bill, as we have heard, and it is really my pleasure and honour, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora koutou e Te Whare Pāremata. The Green Party fully supports the retention of Māori whenua and the mana motuhake of mana whenua over our whenua Māori. We absolutely support the mana motuhake of whānau, hapū, and iwi to be able to use their land and retain their land in a way that upholds their connection and whakapapa and that will provide for mokopuna for generations to come.

We will not be supporting Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill in this second reading. Our simple premise is that this is incredible reform of Māori land law, and, as such, needs to have broad support and deep understanding collectively, from across Te Ao Māori, from across iwi and hapū, and from across Māori land owners around the motu. We cannot say that that is what is happening at the moment. It is not enough of a threshold for the Green Party to support this legislation, which will have enormous implications for whenua Māori—whenua that we have tried so hard to hold on to, after most of it was already stolen or confiscated by several different means. Surely, we can then understand that in any major land legislation reform we want to be really careful. We want to ensure that we fully understand the implications of the legislation and that we broadly support it, but that is not the situation in this particular legislation.

I do want to take a short step back for a minute, because I too echo the support for our Māori Affairs Committee and the tautoko to Nuk Korako for leading the discussion and deliberation that we had across the parties. During the select committee process, after the submissions were received from around the country, as a select committee we agreed to come back, outside ordinary hours and expectations, to make time to sit together and finish our clause by clause analysis, and sit with the Crown specialists with expertise to try to meet the date for getting this legislation into the House at this point. I will state that it was raised as to why we wanted to rush the legislation into the House at this point. Absolutely, that was raised, and it is a valid concern, not just for the Opposition politicians but also for Māori land owners. This is important, and it should beg the respect of proper consultation.

The measurement of effective consultation cannot surely rest with just numbers. It cannot be just about how many meetings were held around the country, and at what time. The measurement of effective and genuine consultation and engagement has to arrive at a point where, collectively, Māori land owners understand and broadly support the reforms that are being proposed in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. That has not been achieved. The Green Party absolutely wants to see mana whenua, iwi, hapū, and marae being able to decide our own destinies, visions, and dreams for the land in the way that we see fit. We absolutely support that.

In fact, one of the reasons that we will not be supporting Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is that the bill actually fails to address some of those actual impediments—those barriers to “utilising land”. I say “utilising land”, because I think we also have to understand, as Tina Ngata, in her oral submission on behalf of the Tikanga Marae, Taiao programme in Gisborne, stated, very importantly: “the notion of economic development that this bill is based upon is counterintuitive to that which we stand for—that being the retention and wellbeing of our lands and food sources.” I also do not want us to get completely stuck on fixed definitions of what is economic development and what is land utilisation. We also heard throughout the select committee process, you know—who says when land is being well utilised and when it is not? That too has to be up to Māori.

I also want to echo that I was visited—I want to acknowledge the Tauhara North No. 2 Trust, which was one of the trusts that provided an example of where it felt it had been able to achieve what it needed to in the current status quo, and that, therefore, this large reform and the large changes proposed in this legislation were unnecessary, and the approach and process was being driven about the wrong way. We need to make sure that the agenda for large-scale land law transformation is driven by Māori, and that needs to be the bottom line.

I too want to add my commendations of John Grant and Tāria Tāhana, as Crown specialists, for deliberating with us and going through the clause by clause analysis. They were fantastic in being able to provide the Māori Affairs Committee with some sort of clarity on the specific points of the legislation—big, thick piece of legislation. We cannot undermine the value that our specialists were able to provide us with, and I really wanted to add my voice to those congratulations from all of us.

Also, through the submission process it was raised by submitters: will this ture whenua bill negate the current confiscation of Māori freehold land for the purpose of public works under the Public Works Act? If we are serious about the retention of whenua Māori—of Māori land—and if we are serious about making laws to make sure that we can hold on to the last bits of it, then why are we also not amending the Public Works Act, or at least considering—and I understand the difficulty of the legal crossovers between the two different pieces of legislation, ture whenua and public works. However, the principle remains. If we really want to retain Māori land, then we should be looking at the current status quo—the fact that the Government can still confiscate it for the purposes of public works such as roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Delahunty for her member’s bill—a simple member’s bill that did not require going around the country for months and months, but offered a clear solution to the very purpose that this large, complex piece of legislation thinks it is trying to achieve. However, the Minister has not been able to guarantee that we would see that sort of protection under these reforms.

Again, the threshold of support from Māori collectively is not enough for the Green Party to be able to support this legislation with dignity. We absolutely support, in closing, the notion—and, actually, one of our policy platforms is to provide Māori with the development finance, which is something else that is not at all addressed in this bill. It is the barrier that is a longstanding identification of the lack of development finance, which, again, is not addressed by this bill.

We welcome the discussion. We welcome how we are going to do this better, and how we are going to make sure that Māori land owners can properly use land for whatever it is that they want to, but this bill is not getting there. The reforms are so huge and so complex that everybody needs to be on board. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā anō tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare i te pō nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to us once again seated here in the House this evening.]

I want to make a contribution to this debate. I do not necessarily agree with all those who have preceded me in making a contribution to this debate, but rather to say that this is a very big piece of legislation, and I think it would be one of the biggest volumes in terms of Māori land law. I want to use the analogy of a car that has a puncture. Rather than just fixing the puncture, it seems to me that the Government is replacing the whole car. That used to be the modus operandi in making amendments to legislation, particularly Māori legislation, when it required amendment.

This bill, as we are all led to believe, is to address the issue of underutilised, undeveloped Māori land. The reason for this is that a lot of the land is landlocked, and this bill is intended to address that problem. Can I suggest to members that this bill will not necessarily address that issue. As the previous speaker alluded, the major problem is access to financial resources by Māori land owners, to put into the utilisation of their land.

The other issue is that much of the land that we are talking about is landlocked. Although the bill might make reference to that, it certainly does not address that issue.

This bill has been around for a while, in terms of the genesis of it. The Māori Affairs Committee, of which I can gladly say I am a member, recommended that the bill should be passed into law with some amendments, given that throughout the various consultation processes, a Waitangi Tribunal hearing, and via the submissions we received there has clearly been a high degree of apprehension and opposition to this bill. Concerns generally are that the bill’s purpose is unclear, it is too complex, it could further alienate land from Māori owners, and it does not address more important issues such as the high rateable values of Māori land.

There is a view that this bill is largely focused on reforming and reducing the role of the Māori Land Court. Speakers have alluded to the Māori Land Service, which intends to take much of the work that the Māori Land Court is already doing now. I refer to the analogy that I used about a car and its puncture—all that needed to be done, I believe, was that the services intended by the proposed Māori Land Service could have been adopted and arranged for within the present Māori Land Court system. In fact, when I worked for the Māori Land Court, we used to have a division called the Māori land title improvement section, and it was its job to arrange for lands to be amalgamated and to be utilised for land development. That is not to say that it was perfect, but it certainly addressed the issue of land utilisation.

I think that the present bill over-exaggerates the need for the Māori Land Service, although I can understand that one of the issues confronting the use of Māori land is the whereabouts of many of the shareholders, apart from the fragmentation as well. But that, again, is part of tikanga Māori. Everybody is entitled to succeed to their tūpuna’s—or to their parents’—land interests, so you will end up getting the fragmentation that we talk about. Although it is not ideal, at least Māori are exercising tikanga Māori. They are able to do that presently through the Māori Land Court, and so, therefore, the intention to establish the new Māori Land Service is, I think, not necessary in the terms that people would like us to believe.

My party—we share in the minority view that has been prepared. If people look at the report, it articulates some of the concerns that certainly the New Zealand First Party has in relation to this bill. I want to make reference to one submission, which was made by the Māori Women’s Welfare League. I quote from our minority view: “Despite the Review Panel that gave rise to this bill being tasked with assessing the extent to which the regulatory environment is enabling or inhibiting the achievement of Māori land owner aspirations, the Panel chose to develop recommendations based on ‘what should the law look like’ rather than ‘what is wrong with the current law and how should it be fixed.’ ”

I do not think it is pure coincidence that the members of the panel at that time are now recognised as part of the corporate world. So what we have ended up with is really an extension of what they would like to have seen in their capacity as corporate warriors, so to speak. If you look at some of the thresholds in terms of participating ownership, you can see that what has been suggested is a result of the frustration that they have had in terms of wanting to advance the development of the particular interests that they hold.

The bill provides the opportunity for the establishment of governance structures, and I want to just add to the comments made by the previous speaker, which was that there are some present Māori entities that are doing very well under the present bill. They asked the question “Why the change?”, but I think for us in New Zealand First, our real concern is the high level of apprehension that was expressed not only by some submitters but by those who did not make submissions. The fact that they did not make submissions is not because they were not interested, but rather it was out of frustration—frustration at the concerns that they had, which are that this bill is sort of alienating them from participation in determining the future of their land interests.

I anticipate that during the Committee stage many of the concerns that speakers have expressed so far will be articulated during that process. Suffice it to say, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill at its second reading. I too want to add my thanks to John Grant and Tāria Tāhana sitting up in the gallery tonight for their expert advice. There was nothing in our select committee that Mr Grant could not respond to. He had the current Act and our proposed new bill sitting side by side. Bit by bit and clause by clause he took us through the differences. I for one, as a member of the select committee, was very grateful for his ability to do that, to know this bill inside out, and to actually guide us through the whole process.

Everybody here in the House has talked about the various aspects of the bill. I want to just talk a little bit about landlocked land because I have friends in Rangitīkei who have landlocked land. I think the whole theory around landlocked land—that buyers of the land around it would slowly buy them out and choke the iwi out of those particular properties. But there is the resilience of those iwi and of the whānau who actually held on in there. Now we are looking at this new bill to be able to unlock access to those landlocked areas, and it has been well worth the wait for those particular iwi.

I too come from a whānau that has Māori land. Yes, we have a governance board, but it is not that functional, actually—the particular one I am referring to. I think that it does need a lot of help, and that the current Act has not really helped. Several times we have had to go to the Māori Land Court to get it to step in. I also belong to another Māori land block group as well, which has an amazing governance group.

This bill is actually addressing all the land governance groups, not just the major ones that are doing really well—the big ones—but also the little ones as well, to help them to be able to govern their lands well and to bring everybody who has been disenfranchised, I guess, from the lands back to their homelands. With me belonging to a number or Māori land organisations—we too have been disenfranchised, and we have left it up to a small group of people to manage our lands. Now is the time that we return to be able to help them. This is what this bill is all about. This bill is going to stop that fragmentation and it is going to give us the ability to be able to participate as landowners in that land.

As I said, my speech is going to be very short because I too look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. Therefore, I will commend the bill to the House and look forward to the next stage. Kia ora.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Greens on this bill. I had the privilege of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee for some of the submissions on this bill to support my colleague Marama Davidson, who has already spoken.

There were about 150 written submissions on this bill, and about 47 or so oral presentations. I have to say that the quality of those presentations was pretty phenomenal, particularly given the absolute complexity of the original legislation. The purpose of the bill—it has been stated by the Minister as well—is, essentially, to protect Māori land rights of whenua taonga tuku iho to retain control, occupy, and develop their land as they see fit. We have grave concerns that the bill that is coming back to this House will not actually do that. We have a number of concerns, and they are broken down into the process that has been followed and then the content of the bill—or lack of content.

Firstly, the process. Other speakers on this side of the House have referred to it. But this is the first piece of legislation on Māori land since 1993, and my understanding is that that law was passed then, after a careful process that took 20 years. This bill is extremely rushed in comparison. Yes, there were hui beforehand, and there was some feedback. But, given the complexity of this bill, I do not think that was enough, and, certainly, that is what we have heard from iwi katoa right across the land.

Then we come to the content. This bill comes back to the House after 16 different drafts, and there are significant changes in this bill that is being debated tonight from the one that was introduced in the first reading. That is good and bad. It is good, in that the select committee worked incredibly hard, and I acknowledge the chair, Nuk Korako, and I acknowledge the Māori members from this side of the House who went to huge lengths to debate—and at times some of those debates were fairly fierce—points in this bill to make it better for when it came back to the House. But, again, we have concerns about this because what comes back is not what has been consulted on. If we are going to have this far-reaching legislation that changes that legislation from 20 years ago, then iwi Māori should have had time to discuss the changes that have been made by the select committee, and they will not get it.

I have to note at this point that I join with others on this side of the House—actually, right across the House—in thanking the officials for the advice and the quality of the advice that they gave, because of the complex nature of many of the clauses in this bill. It certainly helped me a lot while I was sitting in.

Then there are the bad parts of this, the content. Essentially, we have got some really grave concerns about the Māori Land Service. Others have actually referred to some of the submissions—particularly the one from the Māori Women’s Welfare League—that basically said that the legislation as it is being presented is based on what the law should look like rather than on what is wrong with the current law. We saw no compelling evidence—in fact, no evidence—that there was something wrong with the Māori Land Court. To the contrary, we heard that there were some major issues with concern about the loss of continuity and legacy around changing the Māori Land Court. It is impossible to agree to a piece of legislation when the final details are not published, and we do not know how the land service will work.

We are also concerned that this bill will not result in iwi not being alienated from their land, because it does nothing to address the Public Works Act and the confiscations of Māori land under that. It is too important, for Māori land, to mess with and pass through legislation that has not been dealt with appropriately and has not been thought through. For these reasons we will be opposing this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call a member, I am seeking a little bit of advice. I have in front of me the decision of the Business Committee from 4 November 2014, which says that for the first, second, and third readings of Government bills, where the New Zealand National Party gives one of its 10-minute calls to a Government support party, the 5-minute call for the Government support parties will be given to the New Zealand National Party. I am just seeking advice on whether, in fact, there is authority for that decision to be overruled from the Chair.

I think what I will do is I will call Marama Fox, but I will ask the Clerk to look at the rules. It appears that the Business Committee decision might prohibit it, but I think in the interests of goodwill and it being nearly Christmas, I will call Marama Fox.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—a very wise decision, indeed, given that I think the first speaker, who was indeed a member of the support party, was also the sponsoring Minister of the bill.

I want to turn my comments to our support from our advisers. Those advisers from Te Puni Kōkiri, on behalf of the Crown, gave incredible support to the Māori Affairs Committee during the deliberations on this bill and, in fact, throughout the hearings as we went around the country. They provided us with very sound advice through some complex deliberation. We came to a point, clause by clause, where everyone in the select committee supported the recommendations. Let me say that one more time: everyone in the select committee supported every recommendation throughout the deliberation process, having been debated thoroughly throughout this process. So to John Grant and Tāria Tāhana, for their commitment to the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to commend them and their efforts.

I also want to highlight a couple of themes that this bill does that have not been done before. One is the recognition of whāngai, giving it equal status with formal adoption through law. This ensures that, as is Māori custom in whāngai—and we debated this back and forward to ensure that we understood it—that custom is now being observed in this bill. In fact, a number of tikanga elements are being observed throughout this legislation, which does give greater rangatiratanga to Māori land owners. Although we have heard that many Māori land owners did not support this bill, there were also a number of Māori land owners who, in fact, did support this bill. And you are right—it has been somewhat contentious.

But here is the thing: much has been said about the importance of having widespread approval. So, with that in mind, I actually approached the Opposition members of the House to see whether they would put aside political allegiances and come together to work on this bill, to ensure that we could have the best piece of legislation possible for our people—for Māori people, for Māori land owners. It is true that less than 5 percent, or about 5 percent, of the land of the whole of Aotearoa is still in the ownership of Māori. Therefore, we need to be careful that we do ensure retention and that the land is not at threat.

We actually had some submitters who came and said “Do you know what? The thresholds are too high. We can’t sell the land even if we want to sell the land.”, or: “We can’t even get widespread approval over the 75 percent threshold to make the changes that we want to make.” So the protections are so great that some people objected to this bill because the retention of the land is so great. That point needs to be made.

But here is what was said to me when we put out the hand across the House to work in a pan-party agreement to ensure we had the best bill possible. What was said to me by Opposition members of the House was: “But, Marama, that’s the game. That’s the game we play. We’ll object to it and we’ll stand up and we’ll say those things because, you know, at the end of the day, that’s why we are in Opposition.” Well, if that is the attitude, I find it quite surprising that we will ever get there.

Meka Whaitiri: What? Name who said that.

MARAMA FOX: Oh yes, I can tell you exactly who said that. But I do not want to embarrass them in this place.

I can tell you also that at the very beginning of this term of Parliament, Te Ururoa Flavell invited every member of the Labour Opposition to come and have dinner with him, on two occasions, and, therefore, he laid out the work plan, including Te Ture Whenua, and invited those members to ask him questions, to participate, and to come and work together if they had any concerns. That was never taken up. Not once did anybody walk through that door and take up the Minister’s open invitation to work collaboratively on this bill.

But when we came to the deliberations in the Māori Affairs Committee—and I do, with the others, commend Nuk Korako for the way in which he constructively worked on this—every single recommendation, every deliberation, was agreed to by every member. There is no record in our proceedings of the objections in the clause by clause consideration. Overall, there was disagreement in a minority view, but I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking in the second reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Unfortunately, I have not been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I have attended it on occasions and have seen the hard work that this committee does, especially under the auspices of my good friend Nuk Korako.

I have got to say I have read a little bit about this bill and have participated in some conversations, and I fully endorse this bill. I think it is really important when you think that 5 percent of New Zealand land is held in various Māori interests. It is not being used productively, and the best way to help Māori achieve and become economically free is to actually allow them to use the land more productively. I think this bill strikes a good balance towards that. I think it is really important in terms of creating that economic freedom. I think about the real thrust of this—what it does is it enables the legislative framework for the governors of that land to be able to manage it accordingly and to put in place the governance structures to enable that land to be used. So, on that basis, I have got to say I fully endorse this bill. Thank you very much.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare tā te mea, i tipu mai taku Reo Māori i te whenua, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori, kia aro pai atu taku kōrero ki ngā mema Māori me te hapori o Te Iwi Māori kei waho rā i ngā pātū o tēnei Whare. E te tuakana, e Pita Paraone, e mahara ana tāua ki ngā kōrero ā Tā Hēmi Hēnare hei tāna, e rua ngā take kia pōrangi ai te matenga o te tangata, ko te whakapapa me te whakapono, nā, ka tāpae atu i tētahi atu mea na, anei te mea tuatoru! Tuatoru, e toru ngā mea kia pōrangi ai te matenga o te tangata Māori, anā, ko te whakapapa, anā, ko te whakapono, anā, ko Te Ture Whenua Māori e totohe nei tātau i tēnei pō, kāti!

He maha ngā nekehanga me ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei pire. Tekau miniti, ka riro ki a au te wahaina nei i wā mātou nei whakahē i te pire. Tuatahi, ka kī atu ahau ki a koe me Te Whare, ko ētahi o ngā āhuatanga kei roto i te pire, e tautoko ana. E hiahia ana mātou ngā mema o tēnei taha o Te Whare te kite atu i ngā whenua Māori e ahu whakamua ana, kia puta ai i ngā hua o te whenua ki te iwi puta noa. Horekau he raru mō tēnā. E hiahia ana mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare, kia ū tonu te iwi Māori ki ngā whenua i marere iho mai e ō tātou mātua tupuna ki a tātou te hunga ora i te rā nei, āe, tautoko mārika ana i tērā atu āhuatanga! Ēngari, ka āta wetewete tātou i ngā tino kiko, i ngā kupu iti, i ngā kupu rahi nei ki roto i te pire, ko reira tātou e kite atu i ētahi tūāhuatanga. Kīhai mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare e whakaae.

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki te kōrero a te mema, a Marama Fox. Ko taku whakapae he mahi māminga i oti i a ia i te pō nei, ki te kī atu: “Āe, i toro atu te ringa o Te Pāti Māori ki ngā mema o tēnei taha o Te Whare.” Āe, e tika ana tēnā. I haere atu mātou ki te kai ngātahi me Te Minita, āe, e tika ana tērā. Ko tāku atu ki a ia, ka oti ki roto i te kotahi haora ngā take katoa o Te Ture Whenua nei oti ai? E ea ai? Kāhore! Kāhore! Nō reira, ko te kī mai ki runga i te rīkoata o Te Hansard o Te Whare nei, anā, i ngau tuarā mātou i te āpitihanga i tērā pāti, me ngā nekehanga o tēnei pire! Rawa au e whakaae ana, me te kī atu he kōrero māminga tēnā.

Kāti, kua wahaina mai ngā mihi ki ngā āpihā o Te Minita, ki ngā kaiwhakahaere o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri ngā Take Māori, āe, e tautoko ana au i ērā kōrero ki a rātou, me te mihi anō mō ngā mahi nunui kua oti i ā rātou ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. I kī mai te mema mō tetahi wāhi ātaahua rawa atu, a Hunua, arā, ko Andrew Bayly tērā, ka kī mai ia: “Ae, ko te rima pae heneti te nuinga, te rahi o te whenua kei roto i ngā ringaringa o Te Māori.” Hei tāna: “Ko te nuinga, ē hoa, e noho tārewa ana, e noho ngoikore ana.”

Ahakoa he tamaiti taku pakeke, ko te kī atu ahau ki tēnei Whare, mō ngā tau e ono kua pahure ake nei, ko au tetahi o ngā kaiwhakahaere Whenua Māori, me te kī atu ki tērā mema: “Ē mara, kāti rā ko te kōrero pōrangi ko tērā!”. He hua nui ka puta mai i ngā whenua o Ngāti Hine. He hua nui ka puta mai i ngā poraka whenua i wahaina mai e tōku hoa mahi nei a Meka Whaitiri ki roto i Te Tairāwhiti, te wahi whenua o Te Minita o ngā take Mātauranga. Nō reira, ko te kī atu he iwi koretake Te Iwi Māori ki te ahu whenua, āe mārika, āe mārika! Ko te wero atu ki tērā mema nā. Tēnā kōrero mai i taua kōrero ki runga i te marae o Waitangi a taihoa ake nei! Kāti, kua rongo atu ahau i ngā totohe kei roto i Te Whare me te kī atu, mā te tikanga Māori ngā amuamu me ngā raruraru ka ea ki roto i tēnei pire.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te raruraru ka pā ki roto i Te Iwi o Te Arawa, e pā ana ki tērā wāhi ātaahua ko Whakarewarewa. Ko wai mā ngā kaiwhakawā i tukuna e Te Karauna ki te whakatika i tērā raruraru? Ē hoa, ko tōku pāpā ko Ērima Hēnare me tōku tūpuna a Kevin Paraima. Mehemea e mōhio ana Te Kāwanatanga i ngā hītori, kei waenganui i a Ngāpuhi me Te Arawa, ē hoa, horekau he take mō te tukuna atu i tetahi o Ngāpuhi ki te whakatikatika i ngā raruraru o Te Arawa! Kātahi rā te whakaaro pōrangi ko tērā, me te kī atu, mā te tikanga e ea ēnei take. He tino raruraru tēnā.

Kua roa rawa ahau e mea atu ana, horekau he wahanga mō te tikanga Māori ki roto i te ture Pākehā, kei raruraru tātou! Kei raru tātou ā taihoa ake nei! Mehemea ka haere atu mā runga i tēnei huarahi, arā, ko te tikanga Māori, tētahi raruraru kei waenganui i a māua kō tētahi atu, mā wai rā te kī, mehemea rawa au e whakaae ana ki ngā tatūnga hei te otinga ake? Tahi ka huri atu ahau ki te kōti Pākehā hei tau ai te take nei. Nā, koinā te raruraru o tērā whakaaro, mā te tikanga ngā take o tēnei pire e ea ai? He raruraru nui tēnā ki a au nei. Rawa au ko te kī atu, he koretake te tikanga, kāhore! Rawa au mō te kī atu horekau he tāngata kai roto i Te Ao Māori, tatū ai ngā take e pā ana ki te tikanga, kāhore! Ēngari ko tāku e kī atu, mehemea ko Te Puni Kōkiri, mehemea ko Te Kāwanatanga hei tohutohu, ko wai mā te kaiwhakawā o te take nei, ā, nā ko reira te raruraru. Ko reira te raruraru.

Kua kōrero mai ngā mema o Te Whare nei mō te tīmokamokatanga o ngā hea, ara, ko te fragmentation. Ka pai tērā kupu ki a au nei, ko te “tīmokamoka”. Āe, ko tērā tetahi o ngā tino raruraru o te wā nei. E mōhio ana māua ko Pita Paraone i tērā take ki roto i ngā mahi whakahaere ngāhere o Ngāti Hine. Ē, kua rahi haere a Māori, koinā te kaha o Ngāti Hine ki te whakaputa uri, ko reira mātou raru ai. Nō reira, e tautoko ana au i te kōrero, me whakakotahi ai, me whakatōpū ai i ngā hea o te whānau, ka whai mana te reo o te whānau ki roto i ngā nekehanga o ngā mahi ahuwhenua, ngā mahi whakahaere whenua, he mea pai tēnā. [Bell rung] Ka tangi mai te pere!

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki tetahi atu take e pā ana ki Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Nā, kua kite atu i te āwangawanga o ngā kaimahi Māori kei roto i Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Āe mārika he take nui tēnā, ki te kī atu ki ngā kaimahi Māori kua roa rawa e awhi nei i te hunga whakahaere whenua, e awhi nei i ngā whānau kei a rātou ngā hea mō ngā whenua, ki te kī atu ki ā rātou, tēnā, ka pōroa ngā wāhi mahi, ngā tūranga mahi. He tino raruraru tēnā tā te mea, kua roa rawa Te Iwi Māori e mea atu ana, hoatu te kaha whakapakari ake i Te Kōti Whenua Māori, ko reira ka whiwhi mana, ka whiwhi reo ai mātou, kei a mātou ngā whenua ki roto i ngā take o Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Whakapakari ake i Te Kōti! Kaua e tapaina! Kaua e peia ko ngā tūranga mahi, he tino raruraru tēnā.

Kāti, ki roto i te toenga o te wā kei a au e kōrero ana, kore au e whakaae ana ki ngā nekehanga o tēnei pire. Ko ētahi o ngā kōrero, e whakaae ana mātou ēngari, ko te nuinga he aha te take ko te nuinga? Tā te mea i hoki atu mātou ngā kaiwhakahaere whenua Māori me ngā kaipupuru i ngā tūru Māori o Te Whare Pāremata nei ki ō mātou ake tāngata. Nā rātou te kī: “Kaua e tautoko i te pire, kaua e tautoko i te pire!”. Nā runga i tērā kōrero, ka tau tēnei ki raro, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker; because my Māori language originated from the land, I will remain speaking in it so that my contribution may be taken heed of by the Māori members and indeed the Māori community outside of the walls of this House. To you, my elder sibling Pita Paraone, we can recall the comments of Sir Hēmi Hēnare, where according to him there are two matters that will derange a person’s head: it is genealogy and belief. And now another one can be added—here is a third one. There are three things that can make the head of a Māori mad: genealogy, belief, and Te Ture Whenua Māori, which we are debating this evening—enough!

There are a lot of movements and talk in this bill. I have 10 minutes to raise our opposition to the bill. Firstly, I say to you and the House that there are aspects in the bill that have our absolute support. We the members on this side of the House want to see Māori lands moving forward so that benefits from it can get out to the people throughout. There is not a problem with that. We on this side of the House want the Māori people to remain committed to the lands that were generously bequeathed to them, the ones alive today, from our ancestral forefathers. Yes, we really endorse that other aspect, indeed! But we will collectively analyse the real contents, the minor and detailed words here in the bill, and by doing that we will collectively find some other kinds of situations. We on this side of the House will not agree.

I now turn to the contribution by the member Marama Fox. My assertion is that she committed an act of deception this evening when she said: “Yes, the hand of the Māori Party reached out to the members on this side of the House.” Yes, that is right. We went and had a meal together with the Minister, yes, that is correct. What I do say to her is: can all the issues concerning the land Act be completed in 1 hour? Be settled? No! Not at all! And so according to what is recorded in the Hansard of this House, it states there that we the Opposition were biting that backs of that party with the supplementary to it, and about the movements of this bill. I absolutely do not agree and furthermore, I openly declare the statement is conniving.

And so I bring forth the accolades to the officials of the Minister and the administrators of the Māori Affairs Committee. Yes, I endorse the accolades to them and acknowledge them also for the significant tasks they completed in the years just passed. A member of a very beautiful place, Hunua it was, that was Andrew Bayly, he said to me: “Yes, the majority, much of the remaining land left in Māori hands amounts to 5 percent.” According to him: “Heck, mate, much of it is unresolved and idle.”

Even though I might be a young adult, I have always stated to this House for the last 6 years that I am one of the administrators of Māori land, and have said to that member: “Hey, mate, that statement is indeed the craziest!”. Huge benefits have been realised from the Ngāti Hine lands. The same have been realised from the land blocks borne by my fellow colleague Meka Whaitiri on the East Coast, the homeland of the Minister of Education. Therefore, to say that Māori people are hopeless at farming, yes, really, you do not say! That is a poke at that member in particular. How about making that comment on the Waitangi marae presently! Enough, I have heard the debates in the House and declare the complaints and problems in this bill can be resolved through Māori convention.

I reflect on a problem that occurred within the tribal confederation of Te Arawa and was related to a beautiful place, and it was Whakarewarewa. Who, then, were the adjudicators the Crown sent to resolve the problem? Hey, mate, it was my father Ērima Hēnare and my grandfather Kevin Prime. If the Government knew the history between Ngāpuhi and Te Arawa, heck, mate, it was a hopeless situation sending a Ngāpuhi to resolve Te Arawa’s problems! What a crazy thought that was, and saying at the same time customary protocol would resolve those matters. That is a real problem.

I have said for a long time there is no part for Māori protocol in Pākehā law; it will be our undoing. It might undo us eventually. If we were to go down this path, in other words, follow a Māori customary protocol to resolve a problem between me and someone else, who makes the call if I do not agree with the conclusions at the end of it? Then I turn to a Pākehā court to settle this issue. That, then, is the problem with that notion. Will a customary protocol resolve issues from this bill? That is a huge problem for me in particular. I will never say that customary protocol is useless; I will not. I will never say that there are no persons within Māoridom that can settle issues concerning customary protocol—there are! But if Te Puni Kōkiri or the Government are providing the advice, then I will ask who then adjudicates this issue? And that is where the problem is; that is where it is.

Members of this House have spoken about tīmokamokatanga of shares—in other words, fragmentation. I like that word “tīmokamoka”. Yes, that is one of the real problems currently. Pita Paraone and I are aware of that issue in terms of Ngāti Hine’s forestry administrative operations and hey, Māori numbers have certainly increased. That is a strength which Ngāti Hine has, producing descendants, which has become a problem of ours. And so I support the statement about the consolidation and amalgamation of family shares to give the family a stronger say in the movements in terms of farming operations and administrative duties relating to the land; that is a good thing. [Bell rung] The bell rings!

I turn to another issue regarding the Māori Land Court. I have seen the concerns of Māori staff in the Māori Land Court. Yes, indeed, that is a huge issue, to inform them who for a long time embraced the ones who administered land, and families who had shares for the land, that work places and positions are being chopped. That is a real issue, because Māoridom has been saying for a long time to give the Māori Land Court the mandate to restructure and redevelop itself, and by doing that, it receives autonomy and we get a say as we have the land involved in issues concerning the Māori Land Court. Strengthen the court! Do not disestablish it! Do not banish the positions! That is a real concern.

Well, then, in the time that is left for me to speak in, I do not agree with the movements of this bill. We agree with some of the dialogue, but with the majority, what is wrong with it? We the administrators of Māori land, and holders of Māori seats in this Parliament, went back to our own people, and they said: “Don’t support the bill, don’t support it!”. On that statement, I resume my seat, and my appreciation to us all.]

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. This Government is ambitious for all New Zealanders. If we look at the measures in this bill, this is about unlocking the potential for Māori to participate fully in all of the opportunities that New Zealand offers. As my good colleague Andrew Bayly put it, this allows Māori to grasp their own economic freedom. That is enormously powerful for Māori and superbly beneficial for all of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Taxation (Business Tax, Exchange of Information, and Remedial Matters) Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Taxation (Business Tax, Exchange of Information, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes a number of important changes to our tax system. The centrepiece of the bill delivers on the changes announced by the Government as part of Budget 2016 and proposes a major shift in the way businesses currently pay their tax, making these processes simpler and easier. It is important to the Government that these changes are sound, workable, and deliver benefits to the New Zealand taxpayer. I am grateful to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, so ably chaired by its chair, David Bennett, for its careful consideration of all the proposals in this bill and its recommendations for improvements. The bill is in better shape as a consequence.

The key objective of this bill is to simplify taxes for business—in particular, the process for provisional tax. We are proposing to introduce a new calculation method to better match tax payments with income earning. The proposed new calculation approach, the accounting income method, takes advantage of technological advances to smooth the process. It more closely matches income earning with tax payments and reduces compliance costs for smaller businesses. Because tax will be paid as income is earned, businesses using the accounting income method will have more certainty that they are paying the right amount of tax. There is no intention to do away with the other methods for calculating provisional tax; the proposal is simply for the accounting income method to be a fourth option for calculating provisional tax.

The bill also seeks to reduce or remove the application of use-of-money interest to a large number of taxpayers. Combined, these proposals will remove some 67,000 additional taxpayers from the impacts of use-of-money interest. For those using the new accounting income method who pay the required instalments, the use-of-money interest will also not apply.

The bill also proposes flexibility for businesses that could trade their way out of debt. The bill proposes to reform late payment penalties by no longer imposing the monthly incremental penalty from new GST income tax and overpaid Working for Families credits. The provisional tax proposals are part of a much larger programme of changes aimed at modernising and simplifying tax administration in New Zealand.

Viewed as a whole, the modernisation programme will bring great benefit to New Zealand taxpayers and the economy by improving simplicity and certainty. But during the transition from the current to the new tax administration, flexibility will be required, allowing the Inland Revenue Department to quickly overcome transitional issues. For that reason a proposal was added to the bill at the select committee stage to provide the ability to use regulations to deal with urgent transitional issues. The intention is to avoid undue delays to the transitional process and to provide certainty for taxpayers. Introducing the proposal at that stage allowed the public the opportunity to make submissions on the matter and allowed the select committee to fully consider the proposal and submissions.

Submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on this point were focused largely on concerns about the breadth of the regulation-making power. Not all of those concerns as outlined by media and the submitters were that rational, and certainly this type of tool has been used many, many times before by this Parliament to ensure smooth transitions. It was not the huge, “Henry VIII” provision that some had said. However, on reflection, the reading of Supplementary Order Paper 190 could have been construed as much broader than was intended, and therefore the select committee considered those concerns and accordingly has made recommendations.

The key recommendations proposed are that any regulations must be limited to issues that arise during the IT system changes, must not increase a liability, and must not undermine the relevant rights of taxpayers. In my view, incorporating these recommendations achieves the objective of allowing the Inland Revenue Department to respond to transitional issues, but by narrowing the scope of the proposal and building in further safeguards it addresses the concerns of submitters.

The second major component of this bill proposes enabling legislation requiring New Zealand financial institutions, unless exempted, to review their accounts and collect and report information to the Inland Revenue Department on accounts held, or, in certain circumstances, controlled, by non-residents. Where necessary, the Inland Revenue Department will then share that information with other tax jurisdictions in specific countries. The objective is to help eradicate tax evasion.

The legislation gives effect to New Zealand’s international commitment to implement the OECD’s common reporting standard for the automatic exchange of financial account information in tax matters. It will ensure that New Zealand remains fully compliant with international standards for transparency and tax cooperation.

The overriding principle in this proposal is the desire to bring more transparency to international tax matters. This is also true for one other item in the bill: the proposed amendment to our foreign trust disclosure rules. Although our tax settings are sound by international standards, the Government is always open to making improvements to New Zealand’s already strong tax settings if that is warranted.

Dr David Clark: The Minister’s already moved on to the health portfolio. Come on, Minister—some passion.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This is not a valedictory. That is why earlier this year we committed to act on recommendations from the Shewan inquiry to ensure our disclosure rules are fit for purpose and healthy. The proposed amendments to the foreign trust disclosure rules included in this bill will strengthen and help make sure that we maintain our reputation in the context of best practice of international exchange of information.

The remaining changes in the bill are of a practical nature and ensure that the tax rules are applied consistently, that they are clear, and that they achieve their correct policy purpose.

Bringing the bill to its second reading, I again acknowledge the significant contribution made by the submitters and the committee to the clarity and the practicality of the bill. In particular, the committee spent significant time with submitters in carefully weighing the context and controls of proposals introduced by the Supplementary Order Paper, which would allow regulations to be made to facilitate the essential building blocks of the Inland Revenue Department’s business transformation. Submitters can therefore be assured that their concerns have been carefully listened to during open consultation, and the bill reflects the considered view of the committee that the proposals are sound. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Grant—the question is that the motion be agreed to.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I was waiting for that, Mr Assistant Speaker. Labour is supporting this legislation but with some significant reservations, which I will come to shortly. As with many taxation bills that come before this House, there is an element of tidying up, making the incredibly arcane and intricate measures of the Income Tax Act and the Tax Administration Act a little more usable for those who have to work with them. Elements of the bill do useful things towards that, particularly around the simplification of tax for business.

I want to thank and credit the National Government with picking up Labour’s excellent flexible tax for business policy, which we announced earlier in the year, after seeing the wisdom of that great piece of work put together by Clayton Cosgrove and Jacinda Ardern at the time—an excellent piece of work. I am pleased to see the Government members—it took them a little while—come on board with that tax simplification process, and also the implementation of the automatic exchange of financial information. Again, these are issues that New Zealand has been involved in discussing at the OECD finding their way into New Zealand law, which is entirely appropriate.

On those elements of the legislation, Labour is happy to support what has come in front of the House. The area that I want to devote most of my speech to, though, is the final element that the Minister of Revenue mentioned, and that is that this is the piece of legislation that implements the new disclosure requirements for foreign trusts. Indeed, as the commentary to the bill says, this is as recommended by the Government Inquiry into Foreign Trusts Disclosure Rules, otherwise known as the Shewan report—John Shewan having undertaken that for the Government.

It is worth taking a step back, because this is actually one of the most grubby parts of the former Prime Minister’s time in office, and one that does not reflect well upon him or, indeed, upon the Government. If we rewind the clock to August 2013, the hard-working officials in the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) were telling the Government that it was time to tighten up New Zealand’s foreign trust disclosure regime. They were concerned about the impact on New Zealand’s reputation, the fact that there was a mismatch between what New Zealand did with its lax rules around foreign trusts and what was happening in the rest of the world—that we were becoming a safe harbour for money that people wanted to hide, not, as we were told occasionally during the select committee, for the money of the many people being persecuted around the world. For sure, there may be one or two of those people who look to shift their money to a jurisdiction like New Zealand, but by far and away those who are misusing our foreign trust regime, who are taking New Zealand’s good and hard-earned reputation and trashing it, were the target of the rules that John Shewan suggested and the target of the IRD in 2013.

The Government rejected that approach, but by the end of 2013 it was on the IRD’s work programme to tighten up foreign trust rules, and that set alarm bells ringing in the foreign trust industry. As we now famously know, the Prime Minister’s then lawyer and close confidante, Ken Whitney, got on the phone, or actually approached the Prime Minister and spoke to him. The Prime Minister said: “Don’t worry about it. Talk to Todd McClay. Nothing will happen here.” And do you know what happened? The IRD backed off. Based on the inside lobbying of the Prime Minister’s lawyer on behalf of the foreign trust industry, 3 years have been wasted not tightening up our laws—3 years of opening up a loophole for people who wanted to hide money in New Zealand.

It was a disgraceful response initially from the Government, and it was only the arrival of the Panama Papers that meant that the Government was forced to act. And even then the Prime Minister’s first reaction was to defend the foreign trust industry, not to support or enhance New Zealand’s reputation, and not to tighten the rules to make sure that New Zealand taxpayers who do the right thing can have confidence in their system. No, the Prime Minister’s first response was to defend his old mates. Then, when the pressure went on, he said “Right, we’ve got to do something.”, and so John Shewan was appointed to do the inquiry.

Mr Shewan did a very good report. In that report there were a number of recommendations that have been taken up in this bill and they include much clearer disclosure requirements. We need to know who the trustees are, who the beneficiaries of the trust are, where they live, and what their tax status is. All of that information will now be provided to the IRD, as it always should have been and as Opposition parties have been proposing for some time.

But, critically, this legislation misses out two things from John Shewan’s report. The one I want to focus on now is the fact that he proposed an immediate implementation of phase 2 of the anti - money-laundering rules. These are the rules that would bring real estate agents and lawyers and accountants into the same regime that banks and insurance advisers, and even casinos, currently have to obey, which would bring us just up to the standard of the rest of the world. “This was meant to be done immediately.”, John Shewan said. “We need to safeguard our reputation. We need to tighten the rules.” The Government has not put that in this legislation, and it is a deep weakness of this legislation, because we know it is through the real estate agents, the lawyers, and the accountants that most of that money-laundering activity is taking place.

I saw Suzanne Snively from Transparency International on TV just this week say that anyone involved in the real estate industry in Auckland knows that money-laundering is taking place through that industry. The Government knows that, and it is dragging its feet—it is dragging its feet.

We had Amy Adams tell us that the Government would get this in—it would get legislation into Parliament this year. There is 1 day to go; it is not happening. There will be no legislation this year, which Amy Adams promised. John Key said in May that the Government would be accelerating implementation of the anti - money-laundering thing, and, no, he just applied the brakes. What we know is that Amy Adams was doing her job. She was taking papers to the Cabinet committees, saying: “We need to get this done.” And it was John Key and Steven Joyce who sat at that Cabinet committee and said: “You know what? The heat’s gone off the Panama Papers. We don’t really need to get into this now.” Steven Joyce was no doubt worried about the donors to the National Party whom he might be offending if he actually did the right thing here, so the work was not done. So we stand here today with a piece of legislation that is missing its crucial element.

If we were really serious in this House about cracking down on the misuse of trusts, about making sure that New Zealanders can have confidence in their own tax system, and about making sure that our hard-earned reputation in the world as a fair place where the transparent and accountable tax system is upheld, then this bill would have the extension of those anti - money-laundering rules. But it does not because the Government is still more interested in looking after its mates than it is in looking after New Zealand’s reputation.

Just this week—just this week—we learnt that Jose Mourinho, the manager of the Manchester United football team, stands accused—

David Bennett: Oh, don’t swear. Don’t swear in this House.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I knew this would upset David Bennett. Nothing would upset David Bennett more than his beloved Manchester United getting dragged into this. Well, Mr Bennett, there is nothing to be proud of here. This is a man who stands accused of hiding his money in a trust in New Zealand. Headlines around the world again—“New Zealand is the place to hide your money”.

It is time for this Government to do the right thing—to get these rules in place. We have had discussion documents, endlessly, and now another one is being released to delay this one more time. It is my strong prediction that if we are even lucky enough in this House to see a bill come forward from the Government, there is no hope that it will be passed before the 2017 election. That is another broken promise from the Government.

There are things in this bill that are useful and important for our taxation system, but there is a blot on this Government and on New Zealand for the fact that we have been a destination for dirty money—for people who want to hide what they are doing in the world. The Government had the chance in this bill to do the right thing and bring into force these rules, and it has completely failed.

I want to thank the Greens and New Zealand First for joining in the minority view that stands in this piece of legislation. In that report we call on the Government and say to it, do the right thing. Implement the anti - money-laundering rules so that New Zealanders can once again have confidence in their taxation system.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The Taxation (Business Tax, Exchange of Information, and Remedial Matters) Bill does cover the issues that that last speaker, Grant Robertson, has discussed around foreign trust disclosure rules—

Andrew Bayly: Comprehensively.

DAVID BENNETT: —and does it comprehensively, as my colleague says there, as well. It follows the report from the independent tax expert John Shewan. I note that the previous speaker said that he agreed with that report, and yet he expects more to be in this legislation than that report required.

The report and its recommendations are the basis of what has been used in this legislation. It deals with the improvements to the registration and disclosure of information, anti - money-laundering rules, and increased information-sharing between Government agencies. So it covers off those issues around foreign trusts that were actually the subject of that public conjecture and also of the John Shewan report. There are a number of changes that are required under that report, and they are formally in the bill. Members will be able to discuss them as they please.

Another big part of the bill is the Business Transformation programme, which the Inland Revenue Department is going through, so there are measures in the bill to support and enable deployment of stage one of that programme, which is essential to update the technology and the ability for the Inland Revenue Department to have the computerised system it needs for the modern world.

Another big part of the bill is the provisional tax regime, the accounting income method (AIM), which basically changes the provisional tax regime. It gives a pay-as-you-go option for small businesses and a way for them to pay tax as they earn income. That was proposed in the Budget of 2016. This accounting income method will make it easier for small businesses to pay their tax payments on an ongoing basis throughout the year.

Other parts of the bill include the implementing of the G20-OECD Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. That is in line with international requirements and is an important part of this bill as well. There are other measures in the bill around the use-of-money interest that also assist in the process of simplifying the tax payment for business.

So this is a good bill that helps small businesses. It makes it easier for them to pay their tax. It brings in new initiatives like the AIM method, which enables them to pay that provisional tax in a timely way. It also covers off the requirements of the Shewan report that deal with foreign trusts. This is an important bill that strengthens our tax system even further. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This is a bill that is a mixed bag. We will be supporting it on this side of the House. It is important. My colleague Grant Robertson has said it, and I will say it in my own words: it is important that we update the tax legislation from time to time—indeed, regularly—so that loopholes are removed, so that it is refined, and so that we collect the taxation that we need in order to fund schools, hospitals, and roads. At the most basic, that is what we are doing with all tax bills that have in their title “and Remedial Matters”, and this is one of them. Most of them have that in their title. It is about making sure that the system is robust and that we continue with a broad-based system of collecting tax, which ensures New Zealanders pay their fair share but also that no one particular group carries an unfair burden of taxation.

That leads me into where I do want to be critical of this bill, because what it does do is it begins to address the issue of New Zealand’s status as a tax haven but does not go all the way. That means it is still more permissive of people who wish to take advantage of lax rules around the world and wish to evade and avoid paying their fair share of taxation around the world. That is something that we on this side of the House simply cannot support as a basic proposition. The Government really is out of touch if it thinks that New Zealanders are not concerned about this—if it thinks that New Zealanders are not concerned about our reputation here and abroad—and the Panama Papers are the tip of the iceberg.

I have to say that Mr Key’s comments at the time of the Panama Papers are something that we should all be concerned about. His immediate response was a concern about the $24 million of ticket clipping that the industry might lose on the way through, rather than about the integrity of the New Zealand tax system and our international reputation. That was his first thought. That was in his first interview on the matter after the Panama Papers broke. That was his concern.

The simplification processes in the bill for small business tax are something that we, of course, heartily support. They are overdue. The Labour Party put forward a proposal that we should simplify business tax and enable businesses to pay as they go, to set their own rate, and this proposal gets most of the way there—most of the way there. It is a little tepid, and I suspect that is in part because of the limitations of the Business Transformation package that has been put in place.

We have known since, I think, about 1993 that the IRD has relied on a tax collection system that is now well past its use-by date. That was years and years and years before Facebook was even a twinkle in the Facebook founder’s eye and long before, of course, many other social media we deal with today.

Chris Bishop: You were going to ban Facebook. You remember that?

Dr DAVID CLARK: This tax system that we work on has been here for a very long time and does indeed need to be updated. The member is quite wrong. He is on the wrong track. It is not unusual for that member to be on the wrong track. He is trying to get a few words in. He is hoping for a promotion in the Cabinet reshuffle. He has got his hand up over there. “Notice me. I want to jump the queue over a few of my mates. I’ll join the forum,” he goes. “I’ll see what I can get out of this in terms of raising my profile.” There is the member opposite. He is always one who is keen to get into the debate, to put his hand up and try to get some advantage over some of his colleagues.

Coming back to the matter in the bill, we support the measures that are being taken to introduce a more simple tax system for businesses. There is no doubt that this is long overdue. The technology is there. It has been done overseas. It was done in the UK a long time ago. It is not something that New Zealand is unique in having—a system of collecting taxes from businesses. It makes sense to do it, and I can only say that it should have happened sooner.

The Labour Party had, of course, the proposal out, and I suspect, as I say, that the National Government has been dragging its feet. John Key said a few years ago that the tax system should not be held back because of outdated technology and that it would be worrying if it was. Well, of course, that is what we are seeing here—the slow and tepid process in that regard.

But to come back to the Panama Papers and the recommendations that came out of the Shewan report that have been incorporated into the bill, we see the anti - money-laundering changes that have not been put in the bill. Some of the proposals out of the Shewan report have been adopted; some have not. The one that my colleague Grant Robertson touched upon is the requirement to have phase two anti - money-laundering law changes implemented immediately. These have not been picked up by the Government.

I think this is of great concern. An ex-McKinsey chief economist estimated in 2012, I think it was, that there was $21 trillion in secret trusts around the world. The industry that clips the ticket on the way through is earning but a pittance of that and is surviving at the expense of everybody else. It is doing business and it is harming New Zealand’s reputation at the expense of everyone paying their fair share and having the kind of infrastructure that would mean that we would not have a failing health system in New Zealand—$1.7 billion has been stripped out by the current Government over the last 6 years in not keeping up with health inflation and demographic changes. We know our health system is struggling. We know that New Zealanders are waiting a long time for operations. We know our school system is struggling, as parents are being asked to give more and more in donations and kids are going to school without their shoes on. That is not adequate.

In this bill is the opportunity to address those secret trusts, and we have seen here that the Government is not willing to go the whole hog. It has stepped back. It has stepped back and said: “No. Real estate agents, you’re exempt—real estate agents, you’re exempt. Lawyers, you’re exempt. We will not bring you into this anti - money-laundering regime at this stage.” So if foreign investors wish to put money into housing in Auckland through real estate—and we know that is happening—they will get away with it under the current regime. They are quite likely to get away with it, and that is incredibly harmful to New Zealand’s reputation, but it is also harmful to New Zealanders.

We know we have some of the most unaffordable housing in the world in New Zealand, and that means that New Zealanders are missing out. But that Government is not interested in everyday New Zealanders and in making sure that everyone has what is needed to provide opportunity for their kids. It has lost touch. It is arrogant. It thinks that now all it has to appeal to are those wealthy tax-dodgers, and that is a great shame.

So although we are going someway here in this legislation to correcting some aspects, we know that there are still some gaping holes in it. We will support the legislation to make the changes that are in there, but, by gum, if it were us writing the legislation, we would be going the whole hog. We would not be leaving these gaping holes, which Mr Bishop will get up in a minute and defend. We would not be leaving those gaping holes in the legislation. We would go the whole hog. We would make sure that New Zealand’s reputation was defended and that we would have a robust tax system.

I have not yet touched upon the fact that in our minority view from the committee, we suggested that greater transparency needed to be brought into the foreign trust regime and that a public register should be put in place. This was a minority view supported by the Labour Party, by the Green Party, and by New Zealand First. The Opposition parties could see the need for a public register.

Obviously, there would be exemptions, I am sure. If there was a feeling that people in vulnerable countries were using the regime for good reason, then that would be the sensible thing to do. But in normal circumstances, the information about who benefits from trusts, how they are run, who stands to benefit, and so on should be publicly available. There is really no good reason why it should not be, or why the tax laws that we have, and those of other countries, should not be upheld.

It is in New Zealand’s interests to have a transparent regime that is robust and that builds faith in the tax system and in Government. Instead, what we have got is more secrecy than we need. We are allowing that situation to continue, where money-laundering can happen through real estate agents and lawyers. It is indefensible that we are not making those changes.

I look forward very much to hearing Chris Bishop defend—and this is a challenge. I challenge Chris Bishop to defend those real estate agents and lawyers not being brought into the anti - money-laundering regime. Why on earth should they not be held accountable in the same way as casinos, for goodness’ sake? Why should real estate agents and lawyers be able to bring money into this country that is not transparently dealt with in the tax regime, when even casinos are required to do that? That is the question that I am looking forward to hearing an answer on from Mr Bishop. When there is $21 trillion hidden around the world by the ultra-wealthy, why should those people still be protected?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I quite like, Mr Clark, the member who just resumed his seat, because generally he is a sensible and pragmatic contributor to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—well chaired by my colleague David Bennett. But every now and then Mr Clark does let his mouth get away on him a bit. With Mr Clark—and this has become a bit of a calling card, I guess you could say, for Mr Clark in the Parliament—he lets his mouth get away on him a bit and sensible comments are mixed with a lot of rhetoric and a lot of kind of very political comments, and that was very much indicative of that speech. There was lots of talk about wealthy tax-dodgers and casinos and the National Government caring only for the rich and the property speculators and filthy lawyers, and things like that.

The reality is, actually, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a sensible bill. It implements, as other speakers in this Parliament have said so far, the recommendations from the Shewan inquiry, but, more importantly than that, it actually makes a series of changes around making the taxpaying process simpler for businesses, and that is something that I know has gone down extremely well with small businesses around the country—our very important small to medium sized enterprise (SME) sector. I know it has gone very well with the SME sector in the Hutt Valley. I know that Alastair Scott was saying to me earlier today that it has gone down very well in his very large electorate of the Wairarapa. In the Hunua electorate—

Andrew Bayly: Very important—very important.

CHRIS BISHOP: —Andrew Bayly is saying to me it is very important, and I completely agree with him.

It will do a series of things. It is tied into the Business Transformation programme. It will, for example, introduce another option for calculating provisional tax—the accounting income method—to allow people to pay provisional tax as they earn their income. That sounds like a small thing, but actually will make a huge difference to the thousands of SMEs out there.

I heard an attempt by Grant Robertson—I was sitting in my office and I heard his speech—to claim that we had stolen the Labour Party’s tax policy. Well, the National Government is not in the business of stealing anyone’s policies, let alone stealing the Labour Party’s policy. So I find that remark from Mr Robertson quite laughable. The reality is this is a very good bill, and I commend it to the House. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Well, if the member is sitting down, it probably does not matter, but I do want to remind my colleagues that the Assistant Speaker, of course, has read his party’s policy. The question is that the motion be agreed—James Shaw.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was anticipating that Mr Bishop would actually continue. It was a riveting speech.

The Green Party is continuing to support this bill, the Taxation (Business Tax, Exchange of Information, and Remedial Matters) Bill, through the House—through to the next stages. I just want to say that I think there are a few times in Opposition when you can campaign on something for years and years and years, you think that all that campaigning is falling on deaf ears, and then suddenly it all happens. There are two considerable wins for us—things that we have been campaigning on since 2011, actually—in this bill that I just want to draw attention to. One is, as referenced by Mr Bishop, the tax simplification for small to medium sized enterprises. I am not going to suggest that anybody has stolen the policy that we ran on first in the year 2011, but it is clearly one of those emergent good ideas that a number of parties across the House came to over the course of a few years and that has finally made its way into legislation.

As a former small-business person myself, I think the idea of a pay-as-you-go system is, frankly, one of those things that is going to make life a whole lot easier for small businesses in New Zealand. I am really looking forward to seeing this in action, because, of all the things that you run up against as a small business, how to handle the cash flow implications of the existing system is an absolute pain in the neck. It is a huge barrier to business. Most business people just want to get on with doing their work. They do not want to have to be handling that cash flow management system, and so the pay-as-you-go option I think is a significant breakthrough. As someone who stood on a campaign platform in 2011 and then again in 2014 on that, I am really delighted to see this move closer into law.

In relation to that part of the bill, one of the submissions did point out that there may be an incentive in relation to changes around the fringe benefit tax on motor vehicles that may produce unintended consequences for sole traders—that is, you may see a great deal of investment in very valuable motor vehicles by sole traders in order to take advantage of that particular tax break in terms of larger and more recent models. I think that is something that is a concern and that we need to monitor. I notice that that submission comment has not made it through to any changes in the legislation, so that is something we want to keep an eye on as it takes effect over the course of the next 12 to 24 months.

The second significant win—this is really the main part of the bill, and other speakers, of course, have talked about this tonight—is in relation to the part of the bill that is around disclosure of foreign trusts and how we manage that. Again, I just want to say that for the Green Party this is a very significant part of the bill.

As early as 2012 my former colleague and predecessor Dr Russel Norman had been campaigning strongly on the need to improve the disclosure regime around foreign trusts in New Zealand. He was concerned then about the potential for damage to New Zealand’s international reputation and the idea that New Zealand may be being exploited as, in effect, a tax haven as a result of our weak disclosure rules. That was, of course, confirmed by the Inland Revenue Department, which had approached the Government on a number of occasions in 2012 to try to get the Government to pay attention to this and was rebuffed. The department, of course, had another go in 2013 and again in 2014. On each occasion, the Government essentially was not really interested in doing anything about that.

I really want to give a shout-out to the media on this because—the fact is that the Green Party had been raising this issue in Parliament, had been asking questions in the House, and so on. We had been working on this. But it was not really until the media and some great investigative journalism actually managed to blow this issue open earlier this year—in April of this year—that the Government finally bent to pressure in the face of having front page headlines about then Prime Minister John Key’s personal lawyer and the connections of lobbyists, and the ability of industry lobbyists to have a conversation with a Minister, get a meeting, and have a review buried. Those stories really did lead to the Shewan review, and then the Shewan review, of course, found that many of the proposals that we had been suggesting for several years were quite sensible changes to our foreign trust disclosure rules. Those have formed the backbone of what is in this bill. So we think it is significant.

The other thing that I just wanted to draw attention to has been referenced by a couple of the earlier speakers—particularly David Clark. He mentioned that one of the things that has not made it into this bill is in relation to bringing in phase two of the anti - money-laundering regulations in relation to the housing crisis. The Government has constantly said: “Look, we don’t need to worry about foreign investment in the New Zealand”—[Interruption] I have got 10 minutes, buddy, and Mr Assistant Speaker gets to wave his hand, not you—not yet, anyway.

The problem that we have got is that the Government keeps saying that only 3 percent of transactions in the New Zealand housing market are foreign transactions—right—and we therefore do not need to worry about it as a problem. I just want to say that it is not the number of transactions; it is the amount of money behind them that makes the difference. When you have got an inflated market like our own, where there is a supply problem, even having a tiny number of transactions around the edge of that, where the amount of money behind those—in a world where you have had a huge amount of inflationary money from quantitative easing in the United States and in Europe, and the massive growth in capital in China, there is a huge amount of hot money coming out of China that is looking for a safe haven to park. I think our housing market is valued at something like $70 billion, or $700 billion—it is a lot of money, anyway. Let us just say it is a great deal of money.

When we are trading with each other, there is less of a problem there, but essentially, if you have got a small number of transactions that have got an, effectively, infinite amount of cash behind them, then that has a massive inflationary impact on an already overheated market. Even if it is a very small number of transactions, the impact of money-laundering through the New Zealand housing market is actually significant in terms of the price effect that that can have on our market. I think we need to really support strongly any attempt to put some sunlight on to that problem through this bill.

I do want to raise another concern of one of the submitters, which is that the regime that has been put in place here is very complex, and the burden of compliance, therefore, is probably going to be quite high. The concern of that submission was that if that is true, there is a real danger that the low-risk, clean operators, if you like—the people who are entirely legitimate in terms of the nature of the business that they are doing, using these trust vehicles—will simply depart, because the burden of compliance is too high and their threshold for risk is low because they are clean operators. They like to keep their noses clean. That is why they have got a low burden of risk. The people who have got a higher risk threshold, who are chancers, and who, maybe, are actually using our foreign trust regime for dodgy purposes, may be tempted to stay, because they will say: “OK, well, we will try to dodge or ignore some of these regulations.”

So, in fact, the concern of that submission is that the legislation may in fact have the opposite effect from that which is intended. I think it is really incumbent upon us as this new disclosure regime comes into effect over the next 12 to 24 months that we maintain absolute vigilance and that we really watch the sector closely to see what actually happens as a result of these legislative changes. It may be that we need to revisit it and make sure that it does what it intends to do. It is a very complex piece of legislation—you do need to be a tax lawyer with some years’ experience to really comprehend it—and, of course, that is a real concern. There may be some real opportunities for avoidance because of the complexities here. Having said all of that, we do obviously think it is an important piece of legislation, and we commend it to the House.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for this opportunity to stand up and say merry Christmas to everyone, by the looks of it. It is probably wise of me to end it there—

Sue Moroney: You can say happy New Year as well.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —and say, yes, merry Christmas, have a happy New Year. I will surprise the members on the other side of the House by saying that in this, the second reading, we will be supporting the legislation. But I have—[Interruption] Aw, Mr Assistant Speaker!

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.