Tuesday, 14 March 2017

Continued to Wednesday, 15 March 2017 — Volume 720

Sitting date: 14 March 2017

TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing—Affordability and Minister’s Performance

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Nick Smith has dealt with some of the most complex problems of resource law and housing more successfully than any other politician here could have”; if so, in what ways, if any, does he think the housing situation for New Zealanders has improved under Hon Nick Smith?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, because the Government has a comprehensive programme to increase housing supply, and it is working.

Andrew Little: Have housing costs as a share of family incomes risen or fallen under National and Nick Smith?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It depends on how you measure it.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table the household expenditure survey report showing the share of household incomes spent on housing is at the highest level since the survey began, in 2007.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis of the way the question was answered, I am going to put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Andrew Little: When his Government’s own housing expenditure survey shows increased housing costs were 94 percent of households’ income increase, leaving them only $2 a week for other costs, does he now accept that housing is eating up what small pay increases some families are getting?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There can be no doubt that we have seen—particularly in the Auckland area but in other areas as well—housing prices increase over recent years, although in recent months we have seen an easing of that. The last quarterly report is actually saying that as well: that we are seeing that slowdown. Equally, with those who are renting, we are seeing a bit of pressure there, but that is why we have such a comprehensive programme that is making sure we have got the land supply that is available and that is also making sure those houses are being built.

Andrew Little: How does he think it feels for the typical family to work hard but to see their income rise by just $2 a week after paying for skyrocketing housing costs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, I will have to check on the $2 a week because the member is not known for getting his numbers right. But at the end of the day, what they are seeing is a Government that is working hard for them, actually addressing the complex issues around housing supply—that have not been addressed for decades, quite frankly—and making sure that we have got an increase. We have seen the biggest number of building consents that we have ever seen—literally up 30,000 now, and from 10,000 just a few short years ago. That is what is going to make a fundamental difference.

Andrew Little: How can he pretend everything is fine when research published in the latest Economist, a periodical, shows New Zealand now has the most unaffordable housing in the developed world?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have got the largest sustained building boom ever, with residential building activity at an all-time high. Building consents are more than double what they were 5 years ago, we have got more than 200 special housing areas that have been done, we have got the National Policy Statement on Urban Development capacity that is making a difference, and we have got the Crown land programme. I saw just the other day that the Hon Amy Adams and the Prime Minister went and opened the Luke Street development, where we saw 43 houses built in a matter of weeks, actually. We have got more than 20,000 people who are getting the HomeStart loans. There is a lot happening in this area, and it is making a difference.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: From the Government’s answers, can we assume that with a 40,000-plus house shortage and thousands who are living in degradation when it comes to accommodation it is not the case that the quote should be: “Nick Smith has dealt with some of the most complex problems of resource law and housing more successfully than any other National politician could have.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I repeat that it is around land supply and the number of houses that are being built. We have seen the number of building consents double in just the last 5 years, and, fundamentally, it is about those places being built that people can move into.

Andrew Little: What does he say to Kristin of Henderson, who wrote to me to say “I will never earn enough as a full-time teacher to afford a mortgage.”, and is it really fair that a full-time teacher in this country cannot afford her own home?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would say that that is not true, and that with the help from the HomeStart loans, and, equally, just in my own electorate of Hobsonville Point, we are seeing houses being built there at $460,000—there are some like that, and there are opportunities for teachers like her.

Andrew Little: Just how far off the tracks are we when the dreams of hard-working Kiwis in well-paying jobs are being crushed by rising house prices and rents, and when are we going to see real leadership and a real plan to restore the Kiwi dream of homeownership?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we are seeing is a comprehensive plan on housing that reaches across increased building consent, land supply, and urban development, and the construction sector at the moment is absolutely booming and about where it is. I find it ironic that a party that labelled people with foreign-sounding names as the problem wants now to bring them over to build people houses.

Metiria Turei: Is he proud that New Zealand tops every category of housing unaffordability in The Economist magazine?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am proud of a lot of things. I am proud that we have doubled the building consents, I am proud that we are opening up Crown land for houses, and I am proud that we are able to have HomeStart loans, which means there is access for those who cannot save for the deposit. Those are the kinds of things I am proud of.

Metiria Turei: Will the Government invest more in building affordable homes now that the Aussie banks are putting the squeeze on Kiwi developers, proving that the market will not solve this housing crisis by itself?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we have seen the market do in just the last 2 or 3 months is actually slow down and housing prices get a bit more affordable. So I would expect to see a bit of a correction, personally, and that will mean what we were also seeing just this morning. I was looking at the houses that are being built in Hobsonville Point—

Metiria Turei: On TradeMe?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, I was actually looking at the TV, and there they are building them at $460,000. There are more apartments coming up. There are more opportunities.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister worried by reports from the Ministry of Education that hundreds of teachers are being driven out of Auckland by unaffordable rents and house prices; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I was speaking to the Minister of Education the other day, and she was saying that, actually, the vacancies in Auckland are relatively low and that they are not seeing the numbers move out that are sometimes reported on without the evidence behind them. But I would say that one needs to be really careful when one starts going there, because I do not think a teacher in Auckland is, necessarily, worth more than a teacher in Tūrangi or in Gore, for example.

Metiria Turei: Does he agree with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which also rated New Zealand as the No. 1 least-affordable place to buy a home in the world, that a capital gains tax would help to rebalance our economy and to fix the housing market; if he does not agree with the IMF, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I probably do not agree with the member’s interpretation of what the IMF said, but what I would say is that we are doing more for home affordability for all New Zealanders than has been done in decades. That means making sure that more homes are being built. More than 20,000 people have accessed HomeStart loans, and that means they get that help with the deposit so that they can get into homes. We are also seeing, I think, a bit of a correction recently.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given international experts saying this is the highest-price market and the most difficult market in the world to be in now, how does she think she is going to get away with statements like: “We have been working on affordability, and it’s improving.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because, in a lot of cases, the houses are cheaper today than they were 2 months ago.

Public Services—Productivity and Support for Businesses

2. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to improve productivity in the public service?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The public sector cost New Zealand around $74 billion last year. For this we received many products and services that help New Zealanders lead successful independent lives. But we do need to constantly work to increase the productivity of the Public Service and develop new and better ways of helping people. One of the key ways—and we are doing that in the upcoming Budget—is delivering better public services for our growing country, accommodating demand pressures where they exist, but also ensuring we get a measurable additional productivity benefit for any investment we make.

Brett Hudson: What progress is the Government making to improve outcomes for New Zealanders who need Government services and support?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As part of this programme to improve productivity, Ministers yesterday reported on their Better Public Services results and the improvements they are making to the lives of New Zealanders. More young people are getting education and qualifications to help them get jobs. Fewer children are getting rheumatic fever or being physically abused. There is less crime in our communities and more people are getting into work and off benefits. There is more to do, but these are real improvements that are making a real difference to real New Zealanders. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! As I have said on many occasions, I do not mind some level of interjection, but when it becomes as loud as it was towards the end of that question, then I am left with no choice but to deal with it.

Brett Hudson: Are all of the Government’s Better Public Services targets on track?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Across the 10 results, there are 11 targets. Seven of them are on track to be achieved in the time frame sought. The remaining four are still making progress but will need more work. These 11 targets are deliberately set to be challenging, otherwise there would be no point in doing it. Although not every result has yet been achieved, there has been significant progress for each target that we have set. In order to keep driving progress, the Government will be considering new methods for tackling individual challenges and continuing to challenge the Public Service to think differently.

Brett Hudson: How is improving Public Service productivity helping businesses be more efficient?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Better Public Services targets include a target to make it easier for business to interact with the Government. A good example of this work is the IRD’s Business Transformation project. As of just a short time ago, small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are now able to not only register for GST online but also prepare and amend their returns and pay their GST directly. SMEs can even pay their GST directly now off the back of their accounting software. All this is estimated to reduce the time that small and medium sized businesses spend on their GST returns by one-third. Already, 4,000 SMEs have reported the new system is saving them substantial time each month. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be a great pity if the member was not here to ask his question later on.

Health Services—Methamphetamine Addiction Treatment

3. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with counsellor Andrew Hopgood, regarding P addicts, that “… a lack of detox and live-in rehabilitation centres limits options for addicts seeking help”; if so, what is he doing to address this shortage?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Methamphetamine is an ongoing problem, and, unfortunately, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of P usage in the world. With regard to Mr Hopgood’s comments, there is ongoing pressure on facilities, but that is why the Government is driving the Tackling Methamphetamine Action Plan, which so far has invested $31 million in anti-drug programmes funded from the proceeds of crime Act. The most recent funding allocation, last October, included $8.7 million on a range of health initiatives, including treatment facilities, as well as funding more innovative ways for police to work with health services in order to reduce demand.

Marama Fox: What is he doing to address the reports of a chronic shortage of live-in rehabilitation centres in the regions, specifically regions like Ikaroa-Rāwhiti?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not sure that there is a chronic shortage in those regions, but it is important to note that there are different treatment options that may be available—not just live-in rehabilitation. Most people will receive help through intensive outpatient services provided by the district health board provider arms and NGOs.

Marama Fox: Given the Government’s investment approach, is he concerned that the Hauora addictions programme, which has had a successful programme evaluation in 2016 has not been allocated any further funding from the Ministry of Health; if so, what is he going to do about it?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am aware of this, and I am advised that officials are considering future options for the programme and the delivery of those outcomes.

Regional Economic Development—Tairāwhiti Economic Action Plan

4. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Economic Development: What update can he give on ways the Government is supporting economic development in the Gisborne region?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): Well, a couple of weeks ago, alongside a number of ministerial colleagues, I released the Tairāwhiti Economic Action Plan. This plan is a shared one between the Government and people of Tai Rāwhiti to increase the region’s economic development. It will provide opportunities to grow the region’s potential, reduce unemployment, and attract visitors and investment to the region. The plan is linked to, and was launched alongside, the Tairāwhiti Māori Economic Development Report, which focuses on a Māori economic perspective, and I acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell’s role in that. The dual launch demonstrates the strength in our regions and that Māori have a critical role to play in boosting economic growth.

Jonathan Young: What economic opportunities for the Gisborne region does the action plan identify?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The economic action plan sets out many opportunities actually identified by the region and represents its priorities for the next 5 years. The plan focuses on adding value in sectors like mānuka honey, wood processing, and increasing production through irrigation. The plan also supports growing Tai Rāwhiti tourism to attract the expected rise in the number of tourists visiting the region. The action plan also provides new funding to grow the skills and capability of Tai Rāwhiti’s regional labour force—including youth—so it better supports the region’s businesses to really grow. To support future growth, the Government will also upgrade State highways and improve digital connection to enable better access to markets and to make the region much more accessible for the many tourists who want to visit.

Denis O’Rourke: Why has there been no action to support the people and businesses in the Gisborne area by reopening the important closed section of the Gisborne to Napier railway between Gisborne and Wairoa?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member shows quite clearly that he does not even follow the papers, let alone visit Gisborne—

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 386, the Minister is required to be concise and not to refer to anything required other than answer the question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is partly right. But on this occasion, throughout the question, his own colleagues kept interjecting and yelling at the Minister while the question was being asked. If the members could cooperate with Mr O’Rourke while he is asking his questions, that would make it easier. I will now ask the Minister to complete his answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If your ears were so acute as to hear what members on this side were saying, how come Mr Joyce was not heard interjecting the whole way through the question being asked?

Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not hear Mr Joyce, but I certainly—[Interruption] Order! My patience will not last a lot longer with some members who have continued to interject—[Interruption] Order! My patience might dissipate very, very quickly. There was a large barrage of interjection coming. I could not identify from which members, but I would say it was many of the members. I have dealt with the matter. Mr O’Rourke is right to expect his question to now be addressed. But if it is infiltrated with a lot of interjection while the question is being delivered, it certainly gives more licence to the Minister when he answers his question.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What the member will find in the region is, in fact, part of that rail line is subject to commercial work, and we have seen a deal done there between commercial parties and KiwiRail in relation to the transfer of logs. The other part is subject to a commercial tender going on right at the moment. What is also true—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague specifically asked about the Gisborne to Wairoa connection of the Gisborne to Napier line. He is talking about the Wairoa to Napier connection, and getting it all wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will listen more carefully to the answer. Does the Minister wish to add anything to the answer?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Mark and Mr Peters, you have continued to interject most of the way through question time. If either of you interject again through the balance of question time, I will be asking you to leave.

Schools, Buildings—Temporary Classrooms

5. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Associate Minister of Education: How many schools across the country are currently using libraries, halls, and other areas not intended for regular teaching as temporary classrooms?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): It is not possible to give a specific figure, because schools regularly change how they use space and do not update the ministry when this occurs. There are more than 30,000 teaching spaces across New Zealand. What I can tell the member is that every school receives property entitlement funding based on its roll, and it is then up to them as to how they choose to use that space. There are a range of reasons why some schools may be choosing to do this, including taking out-of-zone students, choosing not to take relocatable classrooms when redevelopment work occurs, or actively using some of the spaces as curriculum spaces.

Chris Hipkins: Is a caravan a suitable substitute for a real classroom; if so, will this year’s Budget include funding for hundreds of caravans, to finally, after more than 8 years, get ahead of demand and address ballooning class sizes throughout the country?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The answer to the second part of the question is no. But what I can tell the member is that under this Government we have spent a third more on school property—$1.5 billion more—than the last Government. We have spent $850 million on school expansions and more than hundreds of millions of dollars on roll growth classrooms.

Todd Barclay: What reports has the Minister previously received on the state of school property?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am advised that when we came into Government the average age of New Zealand school buildings exceeded 40 years. I am also advised that the school property portfolio had a $1 billion leaky building problem. Since then, we have spent a third more on school property funding. We have spent more than $850 million on new schools and expansions, and hundreds of millions of dollars on new teaching spaces. This Government is proud of its record of investing in school property.

Chris Hipkins: Given that detailed assessment, how many schools, as of today, do not have enough classrooms to accommodate the students whom they currently have enrolled?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I answered that in the primary question—that we do not keep specific numbers. But what I can tell the member is that we do two things: one is we update school property funding, as per school property entitlement; and, secondly, we add a number of roll growth classrooms, either through conversations with the school or through amending their enrolment zone.

Todd Barclay: What recent announcements has she made to address roll growth in Auckland and Queenstown?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Since Budget 2016 this Government has announced significant investment. In Auckland, around $160 million was announced. That includes $19 million for a new primary school in Hingaia South, $7.3 million to expand Ormiston Primary School, $18 million for new roll growth classrooms and replacement classrooms, and $17 million for new roll growth classrooms. In Queenstown, $38 million was announced: $25 million for Wakatipu High School, $11 million to redevelop an Arrowtown primary, and $2.8 million for eight roll growth classrooms.

Chris Hipkins: Is she telling New Zealanders that despite the detailed assessments of school property that her Government has completed, she does not know how many classrooms short current schools are, given the number of students they currently have?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No, I am not telling New Zealand that. As I have already explained, it is up to schools as to how they use their teaching spaces. Some schools have larger classes; they choose to teach in a different environment. Other schools use teaching spaces in different ways. We do keep figures around additional roll growth classrooms. What I can tell the member is that if he is trying to run an argument that we do not invest enough in roll growth, the utilisation figures do not support that and this Government’s spend does not support that. The member is just cherry-picking particular situations, and he does not actually understand the bigger picture. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee.

Chris Hipkins: What does she say to Berhampore School principal Mark Potter, whose school is about 60 students over its 240-student capacity, and who has had to lose school resource rooms and the library to accommodate extra student growth?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: We are always happy to look at individual situations, but what I would say to the member, without knowing the individual situation around Berhampore, is that sometimes it is the case that schools have taken out-of-zone children. That is sometimes the situation. Sometimes we also have fluctuations in numbers. What I can tell the member is that in 2011-12 we had an overall drop of student numbers, and now we are seeing a number of New Zealanders choosing not to leave, because of this National Government’s great plan from an economic perspective. So numbers do fluctuate, and we are happy to add roll growth classrooms where it makes sense.

Chris Hipkins: When she said in 2015 “We’re absolutely going to get ahead of demand” for additional classrooms, did she mean by forcing schools to convert libraries, halls, gymnasiums, dental clinics, staffrooms, and caravans for use as classrooms; if not, why is that happening?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No. What I can tell the member is that back in 2008, when Labour was in Government, some schools did use those spaces for teaching the curriculum. That has always happened. What I can tell the member is that we are absolutely getting ahead of growth, because we spent more than $850 million on expansions and we have got tranches of roll growth classrooms happening all across New Zealand. The utilisation figures do not support the member’s argument; nor does the spend that we are spending.

Anti - money-laundering Measures—Legislative Reform

6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding phase two of the anti - money-laundering and counter-financing of terrorism regime?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I introduced legislation into Parliament to bring lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, real estate agents, and sports and racing betting into the anti - money-laundering regime after the Government fast tracked implementation last year. Additionally, businesses that deal in certain high-value goods, including motor vehicles, jewellery, and art, will also be covered under the legislation when they accept large cash transactions. Following the release of the exposure draft late last year in consultation with affected sectors, the bill aims to strike the right balance between combating crime, minimising the cost of compliance, and protecting our international reputation.

Andrew Bayly: How will the proposed phase two regime impact New Zealanders?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Once in place, the new regime will affect both the sectors covered and the New Zealanders who interact with them. For example, when people are buying or selling property; setting up trusts; buying cars, boats, art, or jewellery with large amounts of cash; or having an accountant manage funds for them they will need to provide proof of identification and address. In some cases, they may also need to provide information about the source of the funds and beneficial ownership. The affected sectors will also need full risk assessment and compliance programmes, and will be obliged to report suspicious activities. Although this will mean extra cost, the new regime is seen as an essential tool in the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing.

Drinking-water Supplies—Bottled Water Exports

7. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will he put a moratorium on bottled water exports, in response to a 15,000 strong petition and nationwide rallies on water issues taking place today?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): No. Bottled water exports last year totalled 9 million litres out of New Zealand’s annual water resource of 500 trillion litres. It amounts to 1 litre being exported in over 50 million, or 0.000002 percent. A moratorium on bottled water exports to address water shortages makes about as much sense as a moratorium on tricycles to solve New Zealand’s traffic problems.

Catherine Delahunty: Thank you for mansplaining. Is there a contradiction in areas such as Hawke’s Bay—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I did not hear the start, but there clearly was one that caused my right-hand side to then erupt. The member will start the question again.

Catherine Delahunty: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Is there a contradiction in areas such as Hawke’s Bay and Canterbury, where people have had to buy bottled water to ensure what they give their children is safe, essentially paying a private company for what should be free and available to them?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Whether you look at the water issues in Canterbury or Hawke’s Bay, the amount of water that is taken for bottled water exports is so minuscule that it is absolutely irrelevant to any sensible discussion about improving New Zealand’s water management. There are issues of infrastructure for some councils, which is at the core of the inquiry in Hawke’s Bay and shows that the Green Party is exactly on the wrong track to address the issues.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did appreciate the Minister’s answer, but he did not address the question about whether people should have to pay for this water. He talked about a lot of other important issues.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question was very definitely around whether there was a contradiction. You did not ask whether people should have to pay. The Minister definitely addressed the question that was asked.

Richard Prosser: Why has this Government not yet adopted New Zealand First’s policy, announced over a year ago, of imposing a royalty—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I have spoken very severely to some members to my left. I am now giving exactly the same warning to members on my right. If I see a continued interjection coming from any member whom I identify, that person will also be leaving the Chamber. Richard Prosser is to start his question again.

Richard Prosser: Why has this Government not yet adopted New Zealand First’s policy, announced over a year ago, of imposing a royalty on every litre of water exported from this country, with at least 25 percent of that royalty being returned to the region from where the water was sourced?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I did see a proposal from the New Zealand First Party to charge all water users 10c per litre. Noting that it takes 400 litres to produce a litre of milk—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Dr Smith will resume his seat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Minister is not permitted to outline another party’s policy, particularly when he just said that policy was deceitful—not a fact—and he cannot show me one piece of evidence.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question was very definitely: why has the Government not adopted a New Zealand First policy? That was the question that was asked. [Interruption] Order! That was the question that was asked, and that is the question I now want to hear the answer to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A cost of 10c a litre would amount to a $40-a-litre charge for our dairy industry, and, no, this Government does not want to wipe out New Zealand’s most important export sector.

Scott Simpson: What steps has this Government taken to ensure better management of New Zealand’s fresh water, and what advice has he seen on its main uses?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The two significant steps our Government has taken are to require all councils to set minimum flow rates in our waterways, and we also introduced compulsory metering. This has seen the volume of water taken and measured increase from 25 percent to now over 85 percent. We now also have a significant number of red-zone catchments where no further extractions are allowed. Three-quarters of the water taken in New Zealand is used for irrigation, about another 10 percent by industry and municipal supplies, 3 percent is taken for stock water, and the portion taken for bottled water is less than a thousandth of 1 percent.

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister understand the frustration many New Zealanders feel as water in rivers, lakes, and aquifers is being siphoned away for commercial use, including irrigation and water bottling, at no actual cost to the user but at massive cost to communities and the environment, which also depends upon it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Every New Zealand household, all 1.6 million of them, has access to water for their own use, for which they pay for only the cost of the reticulation not the use, and if parties opposite want to start imposing new taxes on the use of water, where are they going to stop? Will air be charged for next?

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister understand that not taking action to prevent profiteering from our water is the final straw for many New Zealanders who have put up with water restrictions, polluted swimming holes, dried-up over-allocated rivers, and “boil water” notices?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government does want to see issues like the problems in Hawke’s Bay, which the member associated with intensive dairying. Actually, the evidence before the inquiry has shown that it was in fact sheep and, secondly, non-intensive and more likely to be caused by poor maintenance by the council of its well. I think that member owes the dairy industry an apology. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Catherine Delahunty: How will the Government support the rights of iwi and hapū such as Ngāti Tama to protect Waikoropupū Springs if the Government insists on allowing our water to be given away for free to private industry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In respect of those springs, I am considering a water conservation order because it is my view that that particular world-renowned spring is one that does need to be protected, and I have meetings on Friday with local iwi in that respect. It may be interesting that the bill to be debated when question time finishes actually ensures that Māori have a more effective role and say in springs like those in Waikoropupū Springs, supported and advocated for by the Māori Party but, I note, opposed by every other party in the Parliament.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister support the Green Party position that those making a profit from water should have to pay for the right to use it and prove that their commercial use is actually sustainable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Through the Government’s water reforms we have a technical advisory group that is looking at the questions of both allocation and charging. We do think there is potential for improvement, but I point out to the member that, say, in my own constituency, where you have got a bottled water plant, established by a couple of guys who were made redundant from Solid Energy, next door to Coca-Cola, which makes soft drink just along the road from a beer plant, that both the Coca-Cola plant and the beer plant use a lot more water than the water bottling company. We need to be sure that any steps we take are fair to all users.

Māori Development—Economic Inequality, Housing, and Health Outcomes

8. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he have confidence that his leadership of Te Puni Kōkiri and its programmes are resulting in the best outcomes for Māori?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Tēnā koe tēnā pātai. I believe that thousands of whānau up and down the country are being well supported by Te Puni Kōkiri to achieve better outcomes. Our whānau deserve the best possible support they can get, which is why I have high expectations of all Government agencies and their leadership, including myself, to deliver to our people—to Māori people.

Kelvin Davis: How does he reconcile that view that he is doing his best for Māori when the gap in median weekly earnings between Māori and Pākehā has risen 47 percent since his party shacked up with this Government?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The member asked about better outcomes, and to take an example—let me highlight just one or two. I will start with Māori housing, for example: 344 whānau communities like in Kaeō in the member’s electorate are now in safer, warmer, and heathier—

Kelvin Davis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was around median weekly earnings.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member then added something that almost caused me to rule the question out of order, and he referred to a coalition arrangement in some rather political terms, so that gives a very wide ambit to the Minister in answering the question.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: If I can continue with this fine record, 344 whānau and communities, like Kaeō, are now in safer, warmer, and healthier homes. Sixty whānau and communities, like Ōmāpere, are now in new affordable rental homes. Homeless whānau are now getting better support in communities like Kaeō and Kaitāia through emergency housing projects. I was pleased to see, for example, the member in Kaitāia—the member and me; both of us together—launching and supporting Ricky Houghton in his housing project. Those sorts of projects are producing good outcomes for our people and I am pleased to be supporting them.

Kelvin Davis: Does he believe, as Minister for Māori Development, that the selling off of State houses is rangatiratanga, as his colleague stated, when Māori are four times more likely to be waiting for a State house despite all of those things he has just gone through?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Speaking about housing, we disagree with the submission put through by that member at the moment. But I can say, on the opposite side, for example, that in the community of Ngāruawāhia, where I had the privilege to be probably just about a week ago, there was the opening of te Turner papakāinga housing. It is a nine-bedroom home that will house four generations—10 adults and nine tamariki. Those are the sorts of projects that are really benefiting Māori and getting better outcomes for our people. Those are the sorts of projects that Te Puni Kōkiri are supporting, and those are the projects that I am proud to be Minister to advocate for.

Kelvin Davis: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, believe that, given lower Māori life expectancy, it is fair that the age of superannuation is raised?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Talking about life expectancy, one of the great things that I have to be proud about is a funding allocation of $2 million this year to support initiatives aimed at reducing rangatahi suicide, including video resources and hui. Those are the sorts of things that are positive.

Hon Members: Answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going invite the member to ask that question again.

Kelvin Davis: My point of order is that I asked whether it is fair—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I have asked the member please to ask the question again.

Kelvin Davis: OK. Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, believe that, given lower Māori life expectancy, it is fair that the age of superannuation is raised?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is a Government policy. In terms of the Māori Party view of that—as one part of the coalition arrangement with the Government—we believe that our policy is clear: to maintain the age as it is at present. That is our view.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is answering as a Minister on behalf of the Government. It is not his job as a Minister to give a party perspective; it is his job to answer on behalf of the Government as a Minister in the Government.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think there is much to talk about, but I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was established in this House by Helen Clark and, in fact, Jim Anderton and the new hope for the Labour Party, Laila Harré, that a person who is a Minister inside a coalition Government, when asked a question about their party’s policy, could answer so.

Mr SPEAKER: I need no further help, but I thank both members for their assistance. In this case a very clear question was asked, and I think that the Minister answered it very satisfactorily.

Kelvin Davis: When Māori unemployment is rising, the wage gap is growing, health outcomes are getting worse, and homeownership is a fantasy, how can he, with a straight face, say that Māori are getting positive outcomes under his watch?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The gist of the questions asked by the member is about responsibility, and I take those responsibilities really seriously. Can we do better? Of course we can do better, and my hope is to do that by way of advocating through my role as the Minister for Māori Development. For example, in Whānau Ora $40 million over 4 years is about addressing those issues that the member has put in front of the Parliament today. In terms of business and innovation, it is about moving families to get into positions of self-sustaining businesses, and so on—again, $4 million over 4 years. Those are the gains that we have been able to achieve to address best outcomes for our people. I think they need to be applauded.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 9—[Interruption] The member has used her supplementary question.

Marama Fox: Sorry, we had an agreement to have another supplementary question allocated. That is my understanding.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can see that the chief Government whip is saying that is true, but it is helpful for me, in running question time, if I am made aware of such arrangements.

Marama Fox: Apologies, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your indulgence. Has the Minister read any reports about the very good work that he and Te Puni Kōkiri are doing?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: As it happens, I do. If I can quote from that report: “I have to take my hat off to the Māori Development Minister Te Ururoa Flavell for keeping the kaupapa of the Māori Party beating while gaining wins from the Government in the 2016 Budget.” The quote goes on: “in the past two years, he has done a good job for Māori and can feel satisfied with a new Whanau Ora injection of another $40 million over the next four years—a total of $72 million a year in welfare, education and health spending to go through Whanau Ora providers.” That quote came from the newest member of the Labour Party, Willie Jackson. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and I expect to hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Hon Te Ururoa Flavell said it was a report. That being the case, can I ask him to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: This is easily arranged if the Minister was quoting from an official document. Was the Minister quoting from an official document?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: No, Mr Speaker, from a radio broadcast.

Mr SPEAKER: Then the matter is resolved.

Better Public Services—Early Childhood Education and NCEA Results

MAUREEN PUGH (National): My question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The front bench must also cease interjecting, so we can hear the question from Maureen Pugh.

9. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about the Government’s education-related Better Public Services targets?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I was very pleased to announce that the latest results for the Better Public Services targets show that 96.7 percent of children are now participating in early childhood education. This is an increase of 2 percent since March 2011. I was also delighted to announce that the provisional results also show that 85.2 percent of 18-year-olds achieved NCEA level 2 or equivalent last year. This has been a huge increase of 10.9 percent since 2011. I would like to congratulate students, teachers, and parents for this fabulous result, which is a reflection of their hard work.

Maureen Pugh: Can she provide further information to the House on Māori and Pasifika NCEA level 2 achievement?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am pleased to advise the House that there has been a huge improvement in Māori and Pasifika achievement since 2011. Can I acknowledge the Māori Party for its contribution to education policy. An estimated 74.7 percent of Māori students achieved NCEA level 2 or equivalent in 2016, up from 57.1 percent in 2011. More than 80 percent of Pasifika 18-year-olds achieved NCEA level 2 in 2016, up from 65.5 percent in 2011. This Government is proud of the Māori and Pasifika achievement under this Government.

Mental Health Services, Canterbury—Funding

10. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: How much did the Canterbury District Health Board receive from the Government for mental health and addiction services support in response to the Kaikōura earthquake, after paying off the debt of Kaikōura’s health centre?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Following the Kaikōura earthquake, the Government announced a $3.76 million support package for Kaikōura and Marlborough, including $2 million to clear remaining community debt for the new Kaikōura health centre, as well as a total of $915,000 for Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and $845,000 for Canterbury District Health Board. Although the Canterbury District Health Board sought a higher amount of funding, the support package was deliberately for only 1 year in order to allow immediate assistance to be delivered while the longer-term wider psychosocial recovery response is being considered.

Dr David Clark: Is it not true that the $845,000 he has just admitted to was meant to last the district health board (DHB) until December 2017, and that the DHB has already spent $2 million to date, previously earmarked for other services like aged care, on providing support as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, as the member knows, the district health board is bulk funded. It has got a budget of about $1.4 billion—that has gone up by $330 million over the time of this Government. This was a very carefully formulated package. It was consulted on with the Canterbury and the Nelson Marlborough DHBs and it has delivered a wide range of services, which I am very happy to take the member through.

Dr David Clark: Why did he not listen to the Canterbury District Health Board when he was told in official advice that the $845,000 for mental health services after the Kaikōura earthquake would not go far enough?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, the Canterbury District Health Board made a case for a wider package—a greater amount of money—but looking through its figures, it actually got the figures wrong. So it wanted $3.2 million for the clearing of the debt when the debt was only $2 million. It also wanted about $2 million for community service coordinators, which was actually money that was provided across different portfolios. So there was a difference between the figures there. But the actual fact is that it is a package that is focused on delivering the services that are needed.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table official advice to the Minister that says his relief package is deliberately short term. It is from a briefing dated 2 December 2016 and released under the Official Information Act.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not; it can be tabled.

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

Dr David Clark: Is the Canterbury DHB funded below the national average for mental health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Canterbury District Health Board receives a per-person amount that is based on exactly the same formula as every other district health board. So in terms of the total number, that will reflect the demographics of the population. It is higher than some DHBs and lower than others, but it is the same formula and it is fair right across the country. On top of that, there has been $106 million put in by the Government to help the Canterbury DHB through the effects of the earthquake. That includes $20 million last—

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straight and short question as to whether it was funded below the national average.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister answered it. He said it is higher than some and lower than others.

Dr David Clark: Mr Speaker, that is not an answer to the question; that is a truism.

Mr SPEAKER: That is very much an answer to the question. If the member has further supplementary questions, I will hear them.

Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that financial pressures have put the Canterbury DHB in a position where, just last month, 40 adult in-patients were ferried off to a range of locations at night because there are currently more adult patients than beds in Canterbury?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As he will know, his excellent predecessor, Mrs King, was involved in changing the model of care. It is a model that I support whereby, actually, we are not locking everybody up in the hospitals like we did last century; we are actually moving people into the community where they are cared for. I would suggest that the member puts aside his personal differences with Mrs King, sits down with her, learns from her experience, and learns—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think the answer continuing is going to help the order of the House.

Dr David Clark: Given anticipated demand and given the fact that the chief executive of the Canterbury DHB says a request for more funding was not unreasonable, is the Minister once again saying that he knows better than researchers and practitioners when it comes to post-earthquake mental health support?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I am not saying that, but I have already taken the member through that answer. What I said was that there was a difference between what the Canterbury DHB chief executive thought the Canterbury DHB should receive, but, actually, the figures in that document were wrong. He wanted $3.2 million to clear the debt; the debt was $2 million. He wanted $2 million for community support coordinators; that is actually covered by a range of portfolios. I suggest, once again, he gets together—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not think this is going to help the order of the House.

United Nations Security Council—Resolution Criticising Israel, Cabinet Approval

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the importance of this issue, I would seek to have this question deferred until the Minister is able to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to defer this question to an alternative day. Is there any objection to that happening? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Now there are interjections coming from both sides that are not helpful. I invite the member now to ask question No. 11.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—we need the primary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry—yes. Well, I was going to put another alternative.

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes, in the context they were made and when accurately reported.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Cabinet Manual requires that any international proposal including “denunciation” must go before Cabinet, can he confirm that Cabinet expressly approved his “spirit of unanimity” in which the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2334 criticising Israel?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would like to answer on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I did not hear the middle part of that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Then we will have it again, and we will have it without interruption from anybody.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: New Zealand’s position on that resolution was as has been previously determined by this and other Governments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question, and I never got an answer to it.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member to ask the question again. There is quite a lot that does not need to be in the question, but ask it as the member wants.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We disagree with the questioner’s interpretation of “denunciation”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question asks, in the abbreviated form in which you asked me to give it, “Did a paper go to Cabinet?” It is that simple, and he will not answer me.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The difficulty is that you have got a very general primary question that was asked. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 191/3-4. The member is now getting into something quite specific. We have had two goes at it. I think that on the second occasion the Minister has addressed the question. I invite the member to proceed with his line of supplementary questions, and I will give him one additional supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If “denunciation” was the roadblock in his answer, has he seen Cabinet Manual paragraph 5.73, which specifically refers to denunciation of an international treaty of agreement?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not an expert on the Cabinet Manual. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Mr Hipkins.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Or anything. If he consulted with the Prime Minister and/or the Secretary of the Cabinet prior to New Zealand co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, what response did he get from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of the Cabinet on the resolution?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the member is trying to make something out of something that is not really the case. The first point I would make—and I have made it before—is that there was nothing in that resolution that New Zealand had not previously supported or had not been determined by Government; therefore, there was not the necessity for the discussion that he seems to think should have taken place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What information, briefings, or papers did the Cabinet external relations and defence committee specifically receive from him prior to UN Security Council Resolution 2334; will he table them?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Across all of the activities of foreign affairs, there are numerous papers that are referred to that select committee. I am sure that that select committee will make its own determination about what papers it releases.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House is not the select committee. It is much bigger than a select committee, and he is saying now that if you are at the select committee he may do it, but if it is the House, he will not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think he meant a Cabinet committee. We will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I am not being clever about it—I am having a little difficulty understanding or hearing, in fact, all of the words in the questions being asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Then the easy way forward is to ask the member to ask that question again.

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there. The Minister can address one or both.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Cabinet external relations and defence committee has received many, many papers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs over the last 8 years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will he release all Cabinet minutes, briefings, diary notes, and aides-mémoire, including from Government officials, relating to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am sure that if there was an Official Information Act request made, there would be an appropriate release.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was such an Official Information Act request made, and the person requesting it was told: “We can’t give it to you and we may never give it to you.”

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. That is a matter for debate.

Disability Support Services—Reform

12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding a nationwide transformation of the disability support system?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): I announced that the Government will undertake a 3 month co-designed process with the disability sector to begin a nationwide transformation of the disability support system based on the Enabling Good Lives principle. This change is about ensuring that disabled people and their families have more choice and more control over their supports. Cabinet is expected to consider the system design in mid-2017.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What will be the focus of the design process?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The transformation will focus initially on those receiving support from the Disability Support Services in the mid-central region. The Enabling Good Lives demonstration in the Waikato will continue, as will the arrangements for Christchurch. Input from the disability sector will be vital throughout the transformation process, particularly around the design phase. The new system will incorporate a social investment approach to improve outcomes for individuals and deliver cost-effective services over the long term.

Question No. 8 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I seek the leave of the House to correct an answer given in question time today.

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

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: During question time, I think I was asked a question with regard to superannuation. Although it was outside of the portfolio area, as raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, I said that the Māori Party policy was to keep superannuation at the current level. In fact, the policy is to drop it to 60 years of age.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that this definitely creates an issue when Ministers who are answering as Ministers answer not as Ministers on behalf of the Government but on behalf of political parties, because, actually, strictly speaking, that is not an appropriate use of the correction system. That is correcting a party’s policy, for which the Minister is not responsible to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: We cannot move past it at the moment. I will need to go back now and see the tone and the exact wording of the question, but my recollection was that the question did not really ask about a Government position but took the opportunity to ask about the member’s position, or the member’s party’s position, but I will have another look at it.

Bills

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 March.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): When the Hon Nick Smith spoke to this bill last Thursday—excuse me, I am fighting a cold—he said it was necessary because of the housing crisis in Auckland. Well, we know there is a housing crisis in Auckland, but it is wrong to blame the Resource Management Act (RMA) for that crisis. The RMA has been in force since about 1992. In 2004, when the RMA was enforced, there were 31,423 consents for new houses in New Zealand; in 2016, there were only 29,900. In Auckland the number went down, from 2004, from 12,000 to 9,000. The RMA was in force throughout. How can it be that Nick Smith can blame the RMA for the housing crisis in Auckland? It is a nonsense.

There is a problem with a lack of land supply in Auckland. The Labour Party has been saying that for about 4 or 5 years. I think it was Annette King who made the announcement with David Shearer at a conference about 5 years ago—we said we need a national policy statement under the RMA to free up land supply for affordable housing. I had a hand in that. I remember it. The RMA should have been the solution, or one of the solutions, to these problems; it should not be the whipping boy for problems with housing in Auckland. In truth, the more important solutions in respect of housing involve cracking down on speculators and getting the Government to roll up its sleeves and build a few affordable houses. Every few decades, the Labour Party has to do that, and that is actually, in the end, the essential component of decent housing policy. We also need, of course, to ban offshore buyers.

It is abundantly clear that the housing crisis in Auckland is no excuse for this deeply flawed piece of legislation. Last week I was complimenting Minister Finlayson and the National Government on a wonderful process in respect of the oversight legislation for the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Sadly, this particular piece of legislation falls on exactly the opposite extreme. This is an appalling piece of legislation. It is poorly designed in principle, and the detail of it is flawed in so many, many ways. I and many others, including Sir Geoffrey Palmer, have described the regulation-making powers that are conferred on Ministers under this bill as completely rebalancing the current division of powers between local government and central government in favour of the executive.

I ask this House: who in their right mind would give sweeping executive powers to Nick Smith to override—

Phil Twyford: No!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that is right. These are Trump-like powers. Who in their right mind—well, the answer is the Māori branch of the National Government. The Māori Party is pushing this appalling piece of legislation—which is opposed by Labour, and it is opposed by New Zealand First, by the Greens, by the ACT Party, and by United Future—through the House, and this terrible piece of legislation, which further complicates the RMA, will do nothing to improve affordability of housing. The Māori Party is pushing this through with its two votes, and in return for what? In return for improved participatory involvement for the Māoridom in plan-making processes and some consents. You know, I do not have a great objection to those provisions. They do not actually add much to what is happening, or what should happen, presently, because in theory, under the RMA, everyone has got the right of participation. So why would the Māori Party trade this appalling piece of legislation for some minor improvements to Māori participation rights? Well, it has got to answer that question.

There are three main forms of executive power that are being granted here. The first is Draconian regulatory powers to override rules and plans that the Government deems to be inconsistent with other legislation, which it would like to think is a code. It is aiming here at GM rules against rules and plans—rules against the use of GMOs in specific localities. The Labour Party position is that the safety decision should be taken by the Environmental Protection Authority under the hazardous substances and new organisms (HASNO) legislation. Clinical decisions ought to be taken by clinicians, not councils, but there is an economic decision that is legal for councils to take, as to whether they think it undermines, for example, the ability of an organic apple business in the Hawke’s Bay’s to have GM crops. That is the current law; councils can do that.

If the Government wants to make HASNO a code, it should amend the HASNO legislation. It should not give great big regulation-making powers—executive powers—to Nick Smith. It is similar to if the Government wanted to say that the Building Act was a code for insulation and wanted to stock colder centres like Dunedin and Christchurch, which want to have a more strict code so that their houses are warmer and drier. If those members want that to be a code in the Building Act, amend the Building Act; do not give some broad regulation-making power to Nick Smith. I do not trust him to have that power.

The other regulation-making powers here come through the plan to standardise plan formats and rules. We agree with standard plan formats and standard definitions. It is common sense. But those rules are cast so broadly that they can go to the substance of plan rules, not just their format and definition, and that goes too far too.

Thirdly, the rule-making powers of the Minister are also far too broad. These powers have been likened by some to the old powers that the Muldoon Government gave itself under the National Development Act and to the abuses by the Muldoon Government of regulation-making powers under the Economic Stabilisation Act 1948. We should never forget in this House that those broad regulation-making powers that were given to the executive just after World War II sat on the books for decades and were not abused until Muldoon came along about three decades later and used the regulation to impose a price freeze, a wage freeze, and a rent freeze through taking executive action by regulation, not through this House. This bill is not quite as bad as the Economic Stabilisation Act and the regulation-making power thereunder, but it is on that spectrum. It is on that spectrum, and I ask again: who in their right mind would be handing those powers across to a Minister?

This legislation was panned by just about everyone. Even the few people who came and supported it would say things like “Well, we support the intent of the bill.” before criticising much of its detail. Take the provision in respect of subdivision applications not being notified. Do you know who was opposed to that? The developers—the developers. They said: “It’s going too far. People should have a right of participation.” They further said—and some of the big developers came along and said—“We wear more than one hat here. We don’t just develop land; we run quarries. And when someone puts a subdivision next to our quarry and we have got no right of participation, we get worried because in 10 years’ time, those people will be trying to shut down our quarry, and we need quarries for the gravel for roads.” They came along and said: “This is just silly.” They said: “Abrogating rights of appeal to the Environment Court is wrong too. It will encourage stupid conditions from councils. If there is no right of appeal, they will write 50 conditions instead of 20, and there will be no recourse.” Appeal rights are important. They are not just rights that are important to objectors; they are also important rights for applicants.

There are lots of other things wrong with this bill. In terms of some of the underlying problems that we have got in society, we have got this appalling degradation of our waterways. Eight years after this Government came into power, 70 percent of monitored waterways have still got increasing concentrations of nitrates. Its pathetic swimmable standard, which it announced the week before last, had no provision relating to periphyton, which most people know of as “slime”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it does. Not true.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, Minister Smith, you are just wrong. You are spinning again. The standard that sits there is the old one that sat there for your wadeable standard. It is unchanged for swimmable rivers. I have said that.

You would not answer the question in the House, Nick Smith. I have tweeted and I have put out the information. People know where the truth is and that you have absolutely no credibility. You are letting our rivers be used as farm drains. You threw away the national policy statement that was available to you from Judge Sheppard when you came into Government that said that increases in land use intensity should no longer be a permitted activity. You nixed that, and what you have done since has been completely ineffective, and as a consequence we have got tens of thousands of people rising up around the country saying: “We want to be able to swim in our local river in summer, putting our heads under without getting crook. We want to have aquifers where we can use the water drawn from bores to make baby formula without our babies getting sick.” You cannot do that in South Canterbury now, according to the medical officer of health.

This is an appalling piece of legislation. It is typical Nick Smith—grandiose in intent and flawed in its detail, and it really should go in the trash can.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, and I would like to thank the previous speaker, David Parker, for his contribution. In fact, I quite like David Parker. I am not one who is into pointing fingers and saying horrible things about people, so I am going to say the wonderful things I like about Mr David Parker. I agree with him that he is a valuable man. He has given good input in his speech across a broad range of things that we actually agree on.

We come to this House and we come to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill because we think we try to provide some balance to that. We have managed to maintain kaitiakitanga. We have managed to maintain the place of hapū and iwi in the management of the resources under this piece of legislation. We believe that protection and enhancement of the natural world can only be achieved when tangata whenua are involved in decisions about sustainable management and economic progress. We have this belief. It is also the belief of the Iwi Chairs Forum, whose technical advisers worked with us in negotiations with the Minister to carve back some of the things that the Hon David Parker—is he “honourable”? [Interruption] Yes, he is honourable—mentioned in his speech.

I mean that we want to be involved in a very real way, and to this end we have supported the call of Ngāti Tama, who have sought from the Minister for the Environment a water conservation order over the Waikoropupū Springs. We do this because it has been the experience of Māori in regional areas, under local government, to come and be consulted and tick-boxed and then to be ignored when decision making is made by regional councils and local councils. I could bring up the example in my own town of Masterton, where the iwi were consulted about whether to put the overflow from the sewerage treatment centres directly into the river when the treatment ponds were full.

Our objection was noted. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Te Wairarapa and Rangitāne ki Wairarapa said: “This is unacceptable. You cannot do that. You have another option available to you, and we think you should do that.” The local council said “Thank you very much for your consultation.” and did it anyway—to the point where that river is now so degraded that a farm dog drank from the river, not far from where that sewage outlet flows into the Ruamāhanga River, and died. That is right. That is how clean our rivers are. So, yes, we do believe that being given an increased say, through the Mana Whakahono a Rōhe arrangements for hapū and iwi, with their local council, is an important step, and it is a huge leap of faith for it to be legislated, in law, that they must do it, because it is variable around the country as to how much local government interacts with their local Māori.

Some people have called that separatism. Some people have said that that is special rights for Māori. Some people have said that that is privilege.

Denis O’Rourke: That’s what it is. That, in fact, is what it is.

MARAMA FOX: I will tell you what that is. That is correcting the imbalance. That is correcting the imbalance of a guarantee that was given to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi, and we have sought to ensure the guarantee to all their resources, to all of their lands, to their rivers, to their fishers—

Denis O’Rourke: That’s a different issue.

MARAMA FOX: Oh, is that a different issue? I think not, thank you very much. So our concept of guardianship and kaitiakitanga, which embraces the spiritual and cultural guardianship of Te Ao Māori, is a responsibility derived from whakapapa—whakapapa that links us to our ancestral mother, Papatūānuku. That is our right, and that is why we stand up and fight for the right of Māori within this piece of legislation.

However, let us get to the GE-free debate that has been going on recently. I would like our public and our whānau to know that the Māori Party has been a supporter of GE-free Aotearoa since 2004. It has been in our policy manifesto. It has been in our relationship agreements with the Government. And based on this, there are some things that we would still like to negotiate with the Minister, because the drafting does not completely match the anticipated decisions that we came to and the agreements that we came to around policy.

So, in good faith, we are going to vote for this today, on the guarantee that we continue to have those conversations in order to put forward the policies of not just the Māori Party but, yes, regions such as the Hawke’s Bay, regions such as Te Tai Tokerau, and regions within Te Wai Pounamu, which are advocating for a GE-free stance.

The Māori Party will protect the natural environment and the ecological system. This comes straight from our policy. We will support Aotearoa remaining nuclear free and work towards achieving a GE-free New Zealand. That has been our policy for ever. It is not because people are jumping up and down. We have met with our GE friends throughout the entire process as we have sought to reduce the wide-ranging powers of the Minister.

You might have noticed that there used to be a section 360A, section 360B, and section 360C, as well as section 360D, and they have now gone, because that is what we have negotiated. We do that because we speak on behalf of the people whom we represent, and their technical advisers were completely involved throughout the entire process to ensure that we could get the best outcome for Māori. And guess what? They agree. That is exactly what we have done.

We have secured gains for kaitiakitanga in this bill. If the New Zealand First Party members have a problem with that, they should speak to a member of their party, who was the chief Treaty negotiator for our Kahungunu settlement, in which they were trying to get back the lake and the rivers and have equal management over those resources. He can tell them all about what that means to Māori, and that is exactly what we have sought to do here—so that you can not be just consulted, but up front, at the beginning, you are able to engage in a Mana Whakahono arrangement with your local council to determine in what areas you would like to have notifications around consent.

So, no, maybe iwi do not need to be consulted about a window in a building or a street that is going to be built in an area that has already been subdivided, but they may want to be consulted about a wāhi tapu, a sacred spring, a place that has been a gathering place for their people for centuries. That is exactly what happened with the springs that we talked about earlier, the Waikoropupū Springs.

We are willing to support this bill today on conditions. This is what we say to the Minister. We have been working in good faith with him, and we have made some gains for Māoridom within this bill, for the betterment of the whole of Aotearoa, because kaitiakitanga, linked through whakapapa to our Earth Mother, is the way that we ensure that our environment is maintained in its not wadeable, not swimmable, but in its pristine state. Our policy is not for swimmable rivers; it is for drinkable rivers, or, at least, drinkable where they should be drinkable and not in the middle of Rotorua when there is bubbling mud coming up through the water—but in its pristine state.

So we stand today to say that we give support. We give support to this piece of legislation at its second reading, but we are looking forward to the Committee of the whole House stage, at which any further negotiations that we may be able to get through to further protect the environment will be put through.

Denis O’Rourke: Leaving it a bit late.

MARAMA FOX: It is never too late. It is not too late until the fat lady sings, and I have not started singing yet. So the next stage, the Committee of the whole House stage, is the stage where we can bring Supplementary Order Papers to the House—the opportunity to make amendments, if we are able to do that, and let the rest of the House decide whether those things are appropriate for this piece of legislation or not.

This bill does not become law until it passes the third reading. That is the time at which you should measure how voting is cast—because I understand that has been raised in recent times, about the Māori Party being the Māori branch of the National Party. Well, let me just clarify before I finish: if I wanted to wear blue undies, I would be. I am not. Therefore, we seek to have an independent voice, and we can bring independent voice to this bill. We bring independent votes to this bill. We seek to uphold the wishes of our people who have put their trust in us, and that is what we are doing. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. It has been almost 2 weeks since I have been in this House, and there has been a lot that has happened. If I can ask for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the victims of flooding, particularly the chairman of our Local Government and Environment Committee, Scott Simpson, in terms of the Coromandel, and those in west Auckland. My thoughts are with those communities, particularly our families that do not have insurance. Can I just put that on record. Secondly, can I just acknowledge the successful hosting of the largest cultural event in New Zealand, Matatini, in my area of Kahungunu. I just want to acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu’s hosting of the many kapas that came and also acknowledge the overall winner, Whangarā Mai Tawhiti, which, obviously, comes from my electorate.

This bill is flawed, and I want to use the time in this contribution not to repeat what my colleague the Hon David Parker has said but to talk about the process—to talk about the shambolic process this particular bill has gone through—which has led us to have these grave concerns about whether this bill actually meets the undefined problem that the Minister is talking about, and that is a lack of housing up in the Auckland area. Can I just put on record that this bill was referred to the select committee in December 2015. Clearly, we were going to rise about a week later. We heard 210 submissions throughout the country. About 2 June 2016, which is approximately 4 months later, hearings were completed. If you think about it, that is 4 months of hearing over 210 submissions.

Then we had a departmental report, which was delayed month by month, and it received two extensions from the Business Committee. The select committee members were told that one of the reasons why we were constantly pushing out the report-back date was that Cabinet had not signed off the proposed changes. That tells me that in the National Government’s own caucus there were real concerns around this particular bill. Although not confirmed, I think the delays were because the Government did not have the numbers to pass it through the House, even though it had the numbers at the select committee.

Then we go on to 2 November 2016, and we had the second stage departmental report presented to the select committee, with some 400 pages. Because of the time delay, members were unable or unwilling to make changes. So, throughout the 400 pages that we had at the select committee, we listened to what submitters said. We were active members of that select committee to make the changes submitters had shared with us time and time and time again.

Then on 9 November we heard the Māori Party had cut a deal with the National Party, and it said that it was going to support the bill. The reason why it gave its support was apparently because of iwi engagement plans—iwi engagement plans. The co-leader Marama Fox, the member who just resumed her seat, talked about the importance of iwi being engaged. I want to put on record that we currently have 124—124—iwi and hapū co-governance arrangements with councils as a result of Treaty settlements. Before this piece of reform, 124 existed. I do not want people to feel that this is going to be the silver bullet that gets iwi to the table. It is currently there in our Treaty settlements—124.

There was a concerted effort by many to ask the Māori Party to withdraw its support. In fact, over the February break this year, at Te Rā o Te Raukura, talking to many of the Māori Party supporters, they were unaware that a 3-minute video had been put together by—hold on, Mr Deputy Speaker—the chairman of Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāhiwi Tomoana, and the former captain of the All Blacks, Taine Randell, who is now a director on the Ngāti Kahungunu asset holding company. We had the mayor, who is actually a National Party candidate, Lawrence Yule. We also had growers and agricultural people. We had representatives at council level who participated in this video. Why, Mr Deputy Speaker? Because they realised that the Government was not listening to them. Their video—3 minutes—which is up online, and anyone can google it, was aimed at the Māori Party, asking the Māori Party to withdraw its support.

So this is the process; 14 months later, it comes back here. There was a huge disagreement in the select committee because, apparently, the Government Ministers would not allow us to report back with our minority report. So it came back to this House without a report. I think that is shambolic, and it calls into question the sanctity of the select committee process to ensure that we are making good, sound decisions around legislation that we present back in the House. On this particular occasion, I do not believe that was followed—I do not believe that. For 14 months, we to-ed and fro-ed—all sorts of things were happening—and, of course, at the end of the day, the people whom I represent in Hawke’s Bay have already made a delegation.

I want to just touch briefly on new section 360D, inserted by clause 105. I want to share what submitters said in relation to new section 360D in terms of the broad powers given to the Minister. Here is one quote: “I recommend that the broad powers that would be given to the Minister under section 360D(1)(a), (b), and (c) not proceed.” Who wrote that? That is from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Here is another one: “The new regulation making powers are far-reaching and HBRC and LFNZ have concerns at several levels including: (i) the extensive use of regulations … (ii) the use of regulations imposed by central Government … (iii) the uncertainty as to what the regulations may contain; and (iv) the uncertain status of Ministerial policy statements…” Who wrote that? Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Here is another one, which says: “We submit that 360D be deleted from the Bill on the basis that: The proposed regulatory powers are an excessive grant of power to a minister,”. Who wrote that? Pure Hawke’s Bay. Here is another one: “The Council supports a number of the changes proposed through the Amendment Bill, but is concerned that there are other aspects that may result in communities being less able to self-determine environmental outcomes, which is currently a central premise both for the Council and in the Resource Management Act 1991.” That is from Hastings District Council.

Again, going back to the Māori Party co-leader, around these hapū and the gains that they have received for Māori and hapū around here, there are existing gains that I mentioned early on—the 124. One of them is actually in my own electorate of Hawke’s Bay. This, again, is from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, which notes: “Lastly, with the recent enactment of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act (HBRPC) 2015 it is important that the RLA Bill and any amendments made to it (including changes sought by Local Government New Zealand), must not supplant, compromise, or weaken this legislation. The HBRPC Act has resulted in fundamental and positive changes to the way in which HBRC operates and works with tāngata whenua. Vitally it was an agreed part of the treaty settlement negotiations with nine treaty settlement entities.” I hope that proves that there is wide-ranging opposition to new section 360D, particularly from growers, councillors, and iwi in the electorate that I represent, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay area.

I put this to the Minister for the Environment: there has been no business case presented that says the Resource Management Act (RMA) is the cause of the housing crisis suffered around this country. There is no business case that the housing crisis requires the Minister to have broad powers to override local plans, which is what this bill is doing. This is what this bill is doing. It is giving the Minister broad powers to override local plans, and that is why Labour cannot support this.

It was interesting, too, that the Minister talked about Labour’s lack of long-term planning when it comes to housing. Let me make it really clear, Mr Smith: Labour will build 100,000 affordable homes, we will address speculators in the market, and we will provide 5,100 extra emergency beds. That is what I call a comprehensive housing plan, not this dithering around with the RMA, which is there to protect our environment. Kia ora tātou.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): With the indulgence of the House, I would just like to make a passing comment on the weather events that impacted on my electorate last week and to thank the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, for her thanks. I particularly want to acknowledge the first responders, the emergency personnel, who were busy protecting homes, property, and people during a very severe weather event across the Coromandel electorate last week. What we saw were neighbours supporting neighbours, communities supporting communities, and this week we have the sun back out in Coromandel and a big clean-up job ahead of us.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and support the second reading of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, and as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, what a big job the select committee did. The previous speaker acknowledged the length of time this bill had been before the select committee. That of itself was not unusual—this is a large, complicated, and enormously important piece of legislation. Nearly 800 submissions were received, we heard from over 200 submitters, and we did a lot of very detailed work on this piece of legislation.

This bill, in its form returned from the select committee, is the most significant reform of the Resource Management Act since its inception in 1991. It is the phase two reforms that this Government has been talking about for so long and wanting to bring into the House with the cooperation of our support partners. What it means for New Zealanders is faster, simpler plan-making, thousands fewer consents that will be required, fewer opportunities for appeals, less duplication with other Acts, better management of natural hazards, and increased legal weighting for property rights. These are all good steps for New Zealanders.

This bill has some provisions in it relating to iwi participation, and it is to be remembered that iwi participation has been part of the Resource Management Act since the late 1990s, when Winston Peters supported those initiatives. In those days, Winston Peters used to support iwi participation, and now he has changed his mind. These changes will bring about a better level of cooperation and speedy efficiency that will ensure a more effective flow of consenting and processing of applications under the Act. So there will be an area of stronger national direction: standard planning templates and definitions, requirements to provide sufficient development capacity, and new regulation-making powers to avoid duplication with other Acts.

The new Act will provide provisions to have stock exclusion rules included. New procedural principles for timely, efficient, cost-effective, and proportionate impacts will be in place. There will be more flexible and faster planning, more effective and efficient engagement with communities, less consenting bureaucracy, and there will be fewer appeals to the Environment Court for certain activities, particularly those activities where residential activities have already been designated as being appropriate in residential zones. It seems silly to allow for appeals in that area.

To go into minute detail at this stage in this debate is not appropriate. We will have an opportunity to do that during the Committee of the whole House, but this is a good piece of legislation. It has been a lot of work for the select committee. I want to thank members from across the House on the select committee who, notwithstanding their different policy points of view, all engaged, I think, in an effective way to see a good result proceed. I support the second reading of this bill.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Sir Geoffrey Palmer is right: Sir Robert Muldoon’s ghost is back in the Beehive. He is striding the halls of Parliament with this bill. “Muldoonism” was an assault on democratic processes and the rule of law, with legislation like the National Development Act and the Clutha Development (Clyde Dam) Empowering Act. Muldoonism was about the executive making a decision and imposing it by its will. That is what this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is all about, not only in its content but also in the way in which it is being considered by the select committee and because of the way the Minister dominated the whole select committee process.

Select committees are supposed to be Parliament’s workhorses. They are supposed to be places where bills are scrutinised, where public submissions are heard and seriously considered and debated, and then changes are made to the bill as introduced and recommended back to Parliament. The Minister is claiming the select committee worked like that. He was not there, but we in the select committee had to wait 5 months on his pleasure while he negotiated and worked with officials and with the Māori Party to amend the bill and then have the final departmental report put in front of the select committee. So the select committee process was an absolute sham, and it acted more like a rubber stamp for the Minister rather than being a serious consideration of the bill.

The flimsy speeches by Government members opposite just show how weakly they engaged with the bill. They just waited until the Minister said “Oh, these provisions are all right.” and then they would approve them. That has been one of the problems with select committees under this Government and the way in which they have been weakened because the executive has dominated the lawmaking process.

But this is typical of what is actually in the bill as well, because increasing the power of Ministers and centralising decision-making in Wellington and overriding local and community decision-making has been one of the defining characteristics of this Government. We have seen it in the changes to the Local Government Act, we have seen it in Nick Smith’s dismissal of elected councillors in Canterbury, and we are seeing it in this bill with the major increase in the powers that the bill gives to the Minister, particularly the Minister for the Environment, to actually make regulations and then override local and regional councils and their ability to consult their communities and develop plans.

This bill is all about having development—and how it happens in our towns, cities, and countryside—happen much faster and through new processes where the Minister puts his or her stamp on them and is able to dictate the content of district and regional plans. This bill puts executive power and individual property rights ahead of community and environmental well-being and community decision-making, and it is all about Ministers in Wellington acting to speed up the decision making; it is not about the quality of those decisions.

We have heard from other speakers about the major opposition—from Fonterra, to Forest and Bird, to Fish and Game New Zealand—to the powers in new section 360D, inserted in clause 105 of the bill, and the Minister’s regulation-making powers. Those provisions in new section 360D have been reduced slightly, but there is still a major power for the Minister to directly insert provisions and plans through the new national planning standards, which were previously called a national planning template. The Minister for the Environment can use those to direct what provisions should be, not just in plans all over New Zealand but in specific regions. If the Minister says that a plan must be amended, then it has to be. Seventy-seven percent of submitters opposed the ability of the Minister to make regulations and then to have these national planning standards insert provisions directly into plans—77 percent of submitters—yet that provision is still in the bill. These regional and district plans are critical in guiding the decisions about how development affects our land, our coast, our air, and our water.

Yet the Minister wants the power to directly make decisions on plans in Wellington. In a process where there is considerable potential for abuse, private developers who are applying for private plan changes can apply and get the council and the Minister to agree to a streamlined process, and there may not even be any chance for members of the public to have a say in a hearing in front of the decision makers. Nor is there an ability for members of the public to challenge those decisions through the Environment Court in that streamlined process.

The other major element of new section 360D, inserted in clause 105, that is of concern is the ability of the Minister to use regulations to strike out provisions in plans that he or she considers duplicate or to overlap other legislation. From the start, this has been aimed squarely at those communities such as Northland, Auckland, and Hawke’s Bay, where there are GM-free provisions in their plans. It is aimed at allowing the Minister to remove those provisions in order to allow GM crops to be planted. What this Government fails to recognise is that a major sector of our marketing advantage overseas is because we are GM free, yet through new section 360D, which the Māori Party has not succeeded in getting removed from the legislation, we potentially undermine that and are able to allow GM planters and others to compromise our GE-free status.

Nick Smith claims time and time again that this bill is a litmus test on housing affordability. It is nonsense to blame the Resource Management Act (RMA) for the housing crisis that his Government has helped create. He has been the architect of spiralling housing prices by the Government’s failure to recognise and provide for the major increase in demand caused by the 2 percent population growth annually and the major increase in migrant flows, its failure to implement a capital gains tax to control speculation, its failure to encourage intensive urban development by properly investing in public transport so that people build close to rail routes and bus routes, and its failure to amend the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure that renters get a fair deal. It has exacerbated the housing crisis with its sell-off of thousands of State houses.

Nick Smith blames the RMA for high section prices because he wants to hide just how much this bill, with its very permissive approach to subdivision, is a charter for property developers. It could have been written by property developers because of the way in which it promotes ad hoc subdivision and development and urban sprawl, with little consideration of the impacts that this will have on our coast, on waterways, and on neighbours. Nick Smith’s claims about housing and the housing crisis and the need to amend the RMA are based on anecdote, and the regulatory impact statement made that very clear.

There is no compelling evidence, Minister, that the RMA is to blame for the housing crisis. In the Auckland Unitary Plan, we have provisions that encourage more compact and more intensive development. We do not need this bill to do this. The bill’s permissive approach to subdivision will not apply just in Auckland; it will apply around New Zealand. So unless there are effective plan provisions already in place, we will have much more subdivision occurring in sensitive areas, like on top of our beaches, and potentially in areas like natural hazard zones. What is the point of trying to control housing development in natural hazard zones if you have also got a bill that is encouraging residential development and subdivision as a permitted activity because of the way it overturns the presumption in the current Act that you cannot have subdivision unless there is a resource consent or a plan rule that allows it?

The Green Party also opposes this bill because of the way in which it restricts and overrides the basic rights of public participation. It goes against people’s right to have a say on development that affects their neighbourhood or places that they care about. Informed decision-making is good decision-making. A number of submitters, from airport authorities to Fonterra, highlighted the value of public involvement both in plans and on consent decisions. Airport authorities want the ability to make submissions on subdivisions that may be within an area affected by airport noise so that they do not have issues several years hence because of reverse sensitivity and people complaining about airport noise. But under this bill, that is potentially disallowed because of the very permissive approach to subdivision. So it is fast decision-making that the bill emphasises, not good decision-making.

We oppose the bill because of restrictions on the right to appeal to the Environment Court and the value that that court has in being a check on decision making. It is a bad bill. It should be binned.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill is nothing less than the most serious attack on New Zealand’s democracy in my lifetime. It seeks to so limit regional and local government that local councils and communities will become—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: In the Northland election you said you’d back us.

DENIS O’ROURKE: —planning and policy slaves of the Government executive and its bureaucracy. Nick Smith is protesting, but in fact that is the truth of the matter—councils will be dictated to by ultra-powerful Ministers, especially Nick Smith, intent on their own agendas, with no regard to regional needs for development and with no regard for the diversity of values held by regional communities. It is an anti-regions bill and it is an anti-democratic bill. That is it in a nutshell. There is only one way to stop this, and that is to get rid of this awful National Government this year and also to get rid of the Māori Party, which is the only reason why the Government can even contemplate this horrible legislation. It is a 1 percent party—a tail trying to wag this dog of a Government.

Marama Fox: Two percent at the last poll.

DENIS O’ROURKE: It was 1 percent—a 1 percent party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: How about we get back to the bill?

DENIS O’ROURKE: It is a party not actually interested in preserving local democracy or in regional self-determination on environmental standards, such as the freedom to adopt a regional genetic engineering - free region as a regional development initiative. Instead, the Māori Party has done deals with Nick Smith behind the scenes so that the Government gets its anti-democratic way while the Māori Party gets the influence it wants for some Māori iwi, with useless and unnecessary Māori participation agreements and mandatory Māori appointments to a raft of boards, panels, and committees, to further hamstring local government. The Māori Party has shown, by supporting this bill, that it is willing to accept a thimbleful of special rights for iwi and in return is gifting a bucketful of ministerial power to this Government.

New Zealand First rejects the parallel governance provisions promoted by the Māori Party in the bill. I am supported in this by a leader, by a caucus, and by a party that includes very significant degrees of Māori participation and representation. The whole part of the bill on these matters, as far as I am concerned, amounts to a significant constitutional-level change for New Zealand, reached only by way of a shoddy deal between the Minister and the Māori Party, and we think that is a disgrace. For that reason alone—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I should just draw to his attention the fact that if he feels so genuinely enraged about all these things, he should not have to read his speech. So I ask the member to carry on with his speech. He has another 6—nearly 7—minutes to run, but I would appreciate it if he delivered it without having to read it.

DENIS O’ROURKE: When the bill was introduced, New Zealand First had an open mind and was willing to consider it constructively. New Zealand First wanted to reduce costs and wanted less bureaucracy. In fact, the bill adds more bureaucracy—not less, as has actually been claimed by the Minister. The whole part on special rights for Māori will add a huge, cumbersome, expensive, and worthless layer of bureaucratic nonsense to an already overcomplicated piece of legislation. The Act is already adequate to ensure Māori have the consultation that they need and deserve. It is already adequate for those purposes.

New Zealand First will never compromise the fundamental purposes of the Act and, therefore, is not willing to admit the parallel governance provisions of the bill. And we are not willing to admit the marginalisation of local government either, nor the introduction of excessive ministerial power in the place of local decision-making. We also deplore the loss of many important appeal rights, to the extent, for example, that airport companies are validly worried about not being able to do anything about reverse sensitivity issues, which often arise as far as their activities are concerned.

The idea that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is behind the housing shortage is an extreme absurdity. It is grossly excessive immigration that is, in fact, the main driver of that, and it is the failure of this Government to actually directly invest in the housing shortage that is behind it. The Resource Management Act has never been one of the major drivers of that. That does not mean that it cannot be improved—we agree with that—but this particular bill will make no difference whatsoever.

The Minister in charge of the bill, Nick Smith, in his rambling and largely incoherent speech last week, used Christchurch as an example of why the bill is needed, but, in fact, the greater availability of residential land as a result of the earthquake had much more to do with this, because it led to huge developments in the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts. The lower prices have got much more to do with the availability of insurance money in Christchurch than anything the Minister claimed.

The RMA is our environmental management legislation. It sets the terms for our planning system, so changes to it need to be very carefully—very carefully—considered, and that is not what has happened in this case. Changes need to be based on a high degree of community consensus and with as much cross-party support as possible. The Government has been intent on proceeding with the support of only the Māori Party and no others. The changes represent crude National Party ideology, with the witless support of a self-centred Māori Party.

The new ministerial regulating powers in new section 360D, in clause 105, and sections 360F and 360G, in clause 151, are thoroughly objectionable, unnecessary, and excessive. They were vigorously opposed by most of the submitters that I heard. They compromise local government so that local government itself will be significantly emasculated. The Minister will be empowered to override local and regional plan making, with major ramifications for regional development. New section 360D empowers the Minister to remove and replace parts of the plan. That overrides the right of communities and local authorities to regulate land uses, such as, for example, the use of a genetically modified - free zone for a region that wants to do that. Why should they not be permitted to do so if that is what they see for their future?

A one-size-fits-all approach is apparently intended, but it is not suitable for most parts of New Zealand. Regional diversity is one of New Zealand’s great strengths. As Fonterra said in its submission: “These provisions can detract from local decision making on local issues; compromise the principles of natural justice for stakeholders; and compromise robust resource management decision making.”

Three-quarters of submitters supported a national planning template, but not mandatory content in plans. The bill significantly limits public participation rights in both plan making and consenting decisions, and that is the flaw. Similarly, the streamlined planning process gives the Minister the power in plan making while restricting public involvement. The Minister determines the process. He can make sure that there is no hearing. He has the final approval rights, and there are, actually, no appeal rights. It could not be a worse process as far as local communities are concerned.

Collaborative planning processes are simply not properly developed in this bill and are likely to create local problems, more expense, and delays for local councils, and that is not the objective of this bill, nor should it be. This bill is extremely bad for New Zealand’s local democracy. It is even worse for a comprehensive and robust and fair resource management system, especially for regional New Zealand. It is actually worse still, because it provides for special rights for Māori, which should never be incorporated in a bill of this kind. That is against, and totally contrary to, New Zealand’s local government and democratic position. This bill, for all those reasons, should not pass. New Zealand First will vote against it.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Before I start, I too just want to acknowledge what has been going on, particularly in my electorate of Hunua and also in west Auckland and Coromandel, with the extreme floods that we have had up there. I just want to acknowledge the fantastic work of all the fire services, the police, the contractors clearing the roads, etc., and the way the community all came together to help one another.

I just want to pick up a little bit around what the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, has just been raising. He made the claim that New Zealand First came to the select committee hearings willing to consider this bill constructively. I do just want to point out that I understand that the Rt Hon Winston Peters waltzed around Northland telling everyone that he would support National in passing a Resource Management Act bill. Why is it that when I read the report from New Zealand First, it is opposed to virtually everything in this bill? Not just one thing, but virtually everything. I have got to say, if we are talking about how we say and keep our word, this is something that National is continuing to do with this bill.

I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about the “Mana Whakahono a Rohe”, otherwise known as the “Iwi Participation Arrangements”. Courts have previously determined that iwi have a right to be involved in consents. That is a long-established legal precedent that has been tested, and it is a legal issue. It is case law. One of the other things that courts have defined is that iwi have a right to be involved in consents—not enforcement and not in monitoring, but they have a legal right to be involved in consents.

So what this bill seeks to achieve is to actually clarify those rights. What it does is it sets out the arrangement by which either party, being either the council or the iwi or the hapū, may enter into an agreement. I use the word “may”, and the word “may” is actually in the bill. It is not a compulsory thing. Furthermore, there is no legal obligation on the council to actually sign an agreement with an iwi or hapū. Unfortunately, some members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and this House do not spend the time looking at the bill.

One other thing I just want to draw your attention to is that there is a specific clause in the bill that precludes any possibility—which some members have asserted—that councils will be held to ransom if they do not sign an agreement. There is a specific clause in the bill that says that iwi cannot continue to withhold consent from consents while negotiation processes are under way. Those are very powerful conditions and clauses set out in this bill, but, unfortunately, a lot of the debate that we hear from members in this House is ill-informed and, in fact—worse than that; worse than being ill-informed—just downright mischievous.

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

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Before I came into Parliament, I worked as an urban and transportation planner. I am really passionate about the opportunity we have to create cities that are better for people, that protect our environment, that make good use of infrastructure, that have affordable housing, and that ensure not only that we are we going to reduce our climate pollution but also that we will be more resilient to extreme weather events in the future, because the reality is that the flooding we saw in the past few days is something that will be happening more as a result of climate change, and we need to have a plan for how we are going to have infrastructure to deal with that and how it is going to be funded. Our current Government is completely neglecting to address those problems and issues.

This bill is passing by only a very narrow majority. I think that is a real shame because there have been calls across the board for a review of the Resource Management Act (RMA). The original architect, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, called for a royal commission of inquiry to ensure that we had a broad-based, evidence-based review of the legislation so that we could improve it and solve some of the ongoing systemic issues with it. The Green Party would support a royal commission of inquiry. But the Minister and the National Government have been reluctant to engage in a broad-based debate about how we can make resource legislation work better for everyone. They want to do it their way, and they are going to do it their way, and it is not a good bill. In fact, the vast majority of submitters—there were 647 unique submissions on this bill—made very similar points. Fish and Game New Zealand, the Environmental Defence Society, and Forest and Bird made similar points to people like Fonterra, quarry operators, and infrastructure operators. Many of them described the proposed ministerial regulation-making powers as excessive.

The bill that is before us today is not one that we can vote for. It is not being supported by the Labour Party or New Zealand First either. I think that the public should be very concerned about the one-sided approach that the National Government is taking to reforming resource management law, because it is something that affects everyone in this country. New Zealanders do want to protect the environment, and they do want planning and resource legislation law to be smoother—to operate in a more coherent way—and this bill is not going to achieve that.

We can see, from the great number of submitters that noted huge problems with it, that it is simply not going to solve the problems that the Government is claiming it will solve—most notably, that is housing affordability. The Minister claims that housing is unaffordable uniquely because of the RMA, and that is just rubbish. There is a whole number of factors that are influencing house prices. Some of them have to do with demand. If the Government had instituted a capital gains tax on investment properties, and if it had restricted the sale of real estate to New Zealand citizens and residents, that would have helped with housing affordability. Additionally, if it actually passed some laws to protect tenants—to ensure there was a warrant of fitness on rental properties—that would help reduce house prices and address the issues, which is that people do not have enough money to afford a place to live, whether they are renting or buying in Auckland.

Finally, they could be improving planning rules. One of my greatest passions is improving planning rules. I wish that the Minister understood just how much the land supply problem is related to unhelpful planning rules that prohibit increased density from being provided, because nothing in this bill is going to address that—nothing in this bill is going to address that. In fact, the Minister constantly conflates issues with planning rules with the RMA. The planning rules are determined by councils. If the Minister used national policy statements and national environmental standards to a greater degree and undertook the sort of consultation that is needed, then we might have better planning rules.

Finally, the Green Party would support a national policy statement on urban design to ensure that we have high-quality, people-oriented urban development. It also needs to be championed by the public sector. We need a public sector - led development agency. Just look at Hobsonville. The highest-quality development that has happened in Auckland recently is in Hobsonville. It was led under the Labour Government, with the local council—a public-private partnership, but master planned, and that is what we need more of in Auckland, not this.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Ruth Dyson—5 minutes.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): There has been a bit of a theme running through the National Government over recent times. That is the theme of: “They know everything and everybody else is wrong.” That is exactly what the scrambled thinking of the Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, and the total lack of leadership of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Bill English, has demonstrated in this legislation. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is being used as an opportunity to reduce public input into decisions that have a major impact on the amenities and the environment in which we live, and the Auckland housing crisis is being used as the excuse. It is very hard to justify given that the Minister consistently denies there is a housing crisis in Auckland, let alone spreading throughout the rest of the country, but there clearly is. Then he says: “Because of this housing crisis, which does not exist, we are going to gut the Resource Management Act even further.”

I remember when the resource management legislation was introduced into New Zealand. For the first time, we had a change from the old town-planning regime of rules and regulations and we moved to an effects-based piece of legislation. It was a big challenge, but people were interested in looking not just at rules but at the impacts of development, the way that our cities and our rural towns could be friendlier to families and their citizens, and the way that we could develop our infrastructure in a manner respectful to the environment. Those are tensions that are hard to meet, and the Resource Management Act sought to do that.

The whole of Parliament agreed on that legislation. Of course, at that stage, there were only two political parties here—it was before the start of MMP—but it was supported by the whole of Parliament. In my view, something as important as the rules around developments that have an impact on our lives should be supported by the overwhelming majority of Parliament, if not by the whole of it, instead of this bill, which is going to just squeak through in what I think has been a pretty shabby deal. I say that with respect to the Māori Party. I do not agree with the deal that has been done having more merit than the damage that is being done by the rest of the legislation.

The resource management amendment Acts introduced by the Government since 2008 have just continually reduced the opportunity for ordinary citizens and communities to have a say in what is happening in their area. In Christchurch, the combination of the 2009 resource management amendment, combined with the central government imposition of a truncated and restricted input, let alone appeal of district plan changes, have caused communities to feel disempowered and tricked, and they have been by this Government—they have been. We no longer have the valid say on developments in our area that we used to. This is bad for local democracy. It is bad for the empowerment of citizens.

Anyone in this Parliament would, I am sure, sit around a table with the relevant Ministers and say “What are the problems with the Resource Management Act, and how can we work together to sensibly fix them?”, but that is not what the Minister does. The Minister, who knows everything, sits in his ivory tower totally ignoring all the contributions to this legislation. These are not fringe groups here—we had Local Government New Zealand, we had regional and district councils, we had Fonterra, we had Fulton Hogan Ltd, we had airport owners, we had the New Zealand Law Society, we had the Environmental Defence Society, we had Forest and Bird, and we had Fish and Game New Zealand. It was a pretty broad range of submitters, and they all opposed the legislation. But the Minister would say, from his ivory tower: “I know best. They are all wrong.” Well, Minister, I do not agree with that. I think that in this Parliament we should listen to submitters, particularly when a broad range such as I just outlined come in and say “This is a bad bill.”, and that is what they all said—“This is a bad bill.”

We could improve the Resource Management Act in a way that all New Zealanders would benefit from, but cutting citizens’ voices out of democratic processes and blaming the Auckland housing crisis is not the way to do it. It does demonstrate a scrambled way of thinking from the Minister and a total lack of leadership from the Prime Minister. We need more solutions working together, not this.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to refute everything that that member across the House, the Hon Ruth Dyson, has just said, because I believe that the changes that are coming through this bill are going to be very beneficial for all councils and all the people of this country.

We have taken a two-phase approach to reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA). The first round was the implementation of the Environmental Protection Authority. Through that, the authority was able to deal with nationally significant infrastructure consents. It was able to speed up that process. Through this first round, there has been the opportunity for it to tighten up around enforcement and to look at fines for non-compliance. There are so many great things that the Environmental Protection Authority has done in the first round of the RMA process.

Our second round included some interesting points, because, contrary to what the Greens said about better planning, this particular bill has given an opportunity for excellent planning—not just better planning but some excellent planning—within both regional and local councils. We have also looked at the consenting process—making that process much simpler for organisations and for individuals to actually get their consents through the council. We are recognising affordable housing areas. We all know that there is a housing shortage in this country, and through this bill our Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, has done an amazing job in addressing the consenting processes for affordable housing. We need housing in our big cities and in other cities in this country, and this bill is actually going to speed up that process.

There have been other areas within this bill that my colleagues have covered, especially the member Andrew Bayly, around te Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. I just want to remind the House that it is in law—as in l-a-w, not as in l-o-r-e. So when I start to look at this bill, I see its alignment to the other Acts, and, therefore, there is a smooth transition for the passing of this bill and for it to be fully enacted. I have no hesitation but to commend it to the House. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Nick Smith has tried to sell this bill as a way to fix the housing crisis, but the claim just does not stack up. It is so typical of much of what the Minister brings to the House, in that it is overcooked and the bill does not deliver on any of the promises that the Minister made when he so fancifully organised a press conference in front of a 3-metre-high pile of what were allegedly Resource Management Act (RMA) planning documents. So, although Nick Smith has continually tinkered with the RMA over the last 8 years—and, absolutely, this bill that we are debating today is more tinkering, although I would characterise it as harmful tinkering because it has many negative consequences—in that 8 years in Government, and after 10 years of blaming the RMA and blaming councils for expensive housing, he has done nothing substantive to tackle the real causes of expensive housing that lie within the planning system and the land-use system. He has done nothing about those things, and I am going to talk about those in detail.

Let us consider the claim that Nick Smith continually makes: that the RMA is to blame for expensive housing. We only have to look at the numbers. Between 2004—the last big peak in terms of consenting rates and build rates—and 2016, the number of consents fell by 18 percent. There was an 18 percent reduction in the number of consents between 2004 and 2016. The same RMA was in place, but the value of consents over that period almost doubled. So the cost of building increased by 94 percent; the average cost per square metre increased by 96 percent. It was the same RMA in 2004 as in 2016, but during that time the number of consents between the 2004 peak and the current level of building that the Minister constantly likes to brag about in this House actually fell by 18 percent, even though build costs doubled. In that time, the RMA has stayed the same. So it is obvious that Nick Smith’s love of blaming the RMA and blaming councils for being the overwhelming problem behind the housing crisis is just pure spin.

What does this bill do to fix the housing crisis? What does it actually do? Let us have a look. There are three main things that the bill does that Nick Smith claims will reduce the cost of housing. The first is that it gives Draconian ministerial regulatory powers to override council plans, control consents, and limit the rights of people, communities, and their elected representatives to have a say in the planning process. Secondly, it gives the Minister the power to set standardised plan formats and definitions—which we do not have a problem with, but it goes much further, and that is the problem. It gives Nick Smith the power to dictate the content and the substance of the plans that are developed by local councils. It is Draconian, it is Muldoonist, and we oppose it for those reasons. It also gives the Minister rule-making powers that are far, far too broad, and David Parker spoke eloquently about that earlier today.

Nick Smith’s impulse—his whole instinct—in trying to deal with this issue is to take powers away from councils and local communities and give them to himself. It is all about the centralisation of regulatory power in the executive arm of Government and, in particular, in the hands of that Minister. But this is the thing about this bill: it undermines and adds complexity to the RMA, and it takes power away from citizens and their communities and their elected representatives to have a say in the planning and land-use decisions in their local communities. To dress this up as some kind of solution to the housing crisis and the failure of our biggest city to properly manage its growth is audacious in its spin, even for Nick Smith.

The really crazy thing about the incessant tinkering by this Minister with the RMA—and after a decade of Nick Smith and Bill English blaming councils and blaming the RMA for the problems of expensive housing and the failure to properly manage urban growth—is that all of his tinkering up until now and this bill do nothing to tackle the actual root causes of expensive urban land and expensive housing that lie within the planning system. The core problem is that we have a highly restrictive planning system that stops cities making room for growth. It stops them growing up and it stops them growing out, and when you do that, only one thing happens: the prices go up.

Now, there are three parts to the problem. One is the excessive restrictions on height and density that stop cities from growing up. The second is an urban growth boundary where even the poorest urban growth boundary that can sometimes change and expand, like the one in the Auckland Unitary Plan, still rations the supply of new land for development. It drip-feeds new land into a speculative land market, which ensures that urban land prices are always very high. That is the core problem that we have in the urban land markets, which are so much of a problem, particularly in Auckland. That is a factor of the urban growth boundary being so restrictive.

The third issue is that the system that we have in this country for financing new infrastructure for development is broken. Central government does not want to fund it, councils cannot fund it because they are up against their debt ceilings, and developers struggle to be the middle man for the finance that is needed to lay the infrastructure down for new developments. The system is broken. Those three issues desperately need reform, but this Minister has done nothing about it, and this bill contributes nothing to fixing those three problems. All it does is tinker with the planning process and put more power in the hands of the Minister and take it away from local councils and local communities.

In 8 years, what has the Government done about this? It likes to claim responsibility for the Auckland Unitary Plan, but that is not its work; that is Auckland Council’s work, and, at best, that is a small, incremental improvement in the problems that I have been outlining. The Minister published a national policy statement that was a wasted opportunity to fix these problems. It has simply put in place a bureaucratic mechanism that tells councils to introduce, to drip-feed incrementally, bits of new land into a highly speculative land market. It does nothing to solve the core problem. In terms of the infrastructure logjam, the best that the National Government could come up with was a $1 billion line of credit—cheap credit—for councils that are already up against their debt ceiling. They are already too indebted. It is like offering a bottle of water to a drowning man. That is Nick Smith’s response to the infrastructure logjam. So this does nothing to fix those problems.

By contrast, Labour has put on the table bold and creative solutions to break the logjam for infrastructure financing. We have proposed bond financing, paid back by a targeted rate, which is supported by the Productivity Commission. It draws on international models of best practice that would cut councils out of the picture and give developers access to the cheapest possible credit through international bond finance that would be paid back by the landowners in that development over the lifetime of the asset. Our policy is to replace the urban growth boundary completely with more intensive spatial planning that will allow cities to grow and that will allow the market in land and the construction industry to be responsive to demand, to build houses when people want them, because the planning regime that this Minister defends does not allow that to happen, and that is at the core of the problem we have got. This bill is Draconian. It does nothing to solve the core problems that we face. It is just more tinkering by this Minister.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill in its second reading. I must say, what a very subdued Phil Twyford. In fact, can I reflect—

Scott Simpson: No passion.

MATT DOOCEY: No, exactly—no passion; no belief, I think. You can just imagine Mr Twyford and the other Opposition members of Parliament being given their comms notes for this bill this morning and thinking: “Really? Is that what I’m going to have to say to a bill that will remove livestock from waterways, that will simplify planning rules and bring in national planning templates as well as improve capacity planning for much-needed residential housing?”.

When I reflect on what has happened in the Waimakariri since the earthquakes—under the Land Use Recovery Plan, the Government was able to step in and free up land. What we know is that when we free up land, it increases supply, which equals demand. When you look at needing some space for 18,000 houses—we have gone on to rebuild 23,000 houses, with annual house price inflation of only 1 or 2 percent. It shows, quite rightly, that when the authorities start to plan ahead and think about some of the constraints through land, which are restricting housing for many New Zealanders—that is the answer and that is exactly what this bill will do.

This is the second reading. We went through the select committee stage—and I must acknowledge the very hard-working Scott Simpson, who is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—for a very big bill. We dealt with 764 submissions. Let us not forget our former deputy chair, Sarah Dowie, and our new deputy chair, Andrew Bayly, for shepherding this bill through the legislative process. There were 86 submissions from businesses, 544 from individuals, 57 from local government, and 44 from environmental and community groups.

I just want to finish with a quote from one of the submissions, from Dame Margaret Bazley from Environment Canterbury. She talks about supporting this bill, “including the addition of significant risks from natural hazards as a matter of national importance”, as well as “the new function for regional councils to ensure sufficient development capacity to meet long-term demand for urban development.” The submission also goes on to say that Environment Canterbury supports the two proposed new planning process options and the provisions for involving iwi in policy and plan development. That is why, in this second reading, I support this bill in the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Annual rates of income tax

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Part 1 of this bill is concerned solely with one thing and that is the annual tax rates for the 2016-17 tax year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Which year?

STUART NASH: The 2016-17 tax year. The 2016 tax year started about 6 months ago, so what we are doing is implementing retrospective legislation—

Hon Ruth Dyson: I think 9 months ago.

STUART NASH: Nine months ago. You are right, Ruth. We are implementing retrospective taxation on the most important part of the tax system, and that is how much money we actually pay as salary and wage earners.

What we have seen with tax legislation—in the time that the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, was the revenue Minister and in the time the new Minister has been in place—is a whole lot of legislation come through the select committee in little bits and pieces. The fact that we are only doing this now just shows, in my view, that there is a real lack of policy intent here. I would have thought one of the first things that the Government would want to do after the Budget—when was the Budget delivered? May, I think it was—May last year. So we are talking quite a long time ago. In fact, what we are actually doing now is preparing for the next Budget, which I think is only a couple of months away. The next Budget, in a couple of months, will be codified in legislation in a bill like this, which will have a Part 1, and Part 1 will be talking about the annual rates of income tax for the 2017-18 tax year. But let us hope that they do not wait for 9 months to get here.

What are these rates we are talking about? Well, the surprising thing is that the vast majority of Kiwis who actually pay tax are wage and salary earners, but if you went out onto the street and did a vox pop and said “What are the tax rates?”, I guarantee that the vast majority of Kiwis would not know. They might know that the top tax rate is 33 percent. They might know that that was dropped from 39 percent down to 33 percent in the middle of a financial crisis, as GST was increased. But they will not know, for example, that on the first dollar earned you actually pay 10.5 percent.

So the first tax rate, from zero dollars to $14,000, is 10.5 percent. That is unusual. The reason I say that that is unusual is that in a whole lot of countries, actually, there is a tax-free threshold. I think that in Australia it is about $18,000, but it is certainly significant. Then, between $14,001 and $48,000 the tax rate increases to 17.5 percent. So what the effective tax rate is between $14,000 and $48,000 is actually 10.5 percent to 15.5 percent, depending where you are on that scale. Then, for $48,001 to $70,000, I would be interested to know how many people know what the tax rate is. Does anyone here—Mr Scott, do you know what the tax rate is? See, that is a classic case. Does the ex-revenue Minister—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’m sure the Minister knows.

STUART NASH: —what would you say it is, Mr Woodhouse?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: 30.

STUART NASH: Well done—he did know. It is 30 percent. My point here is that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not actually know what their tax rate is. The reason they do not know that is that they trust the Government to get it right, and so they should—and so they should. The last thing we want to do is to erode confidence in the tax system. The annual tax rates are one of the fundamental pieces of tax legislation.

Let us go a little bit further. Who knows what the rate is—well, I talked about this. Over $70,000, the tax rate is 33 percent. We know this, and I am making a whole lot of assumptions here. I am making a whole lot of assumptions, that, for example, someone is not paying secondary tax. The rate changes for secondary tax.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No it doesn’t.

STUART NASH: Yes it does, Mr Woodhouse, and you know that. You pay secondary tax at, I think, 45 percent. There is a reason for secondary tax, because what happened before secondary tax was introduced was that people were working two jobs. Let us make an assumption: when someone works two jobs, it is not because they love working 20 hours a week; it is out of economic necessity. So what was happening is they were paying these rates that I read out for this job, and exactly the same rates I read out for this job over here. But how the tax system works is that you combine your total income and you pay tax on that total income.

So what might have happened, and, in fact, what did happen—I think they estimate that 200,000 New Zealanders pay secondary tax. So what was happening was someone was earning, let us say, $30,000 for one job and paying 17.5 percent, top tax rate, on that. Then, for another job, they were earning, say, $35,000, and they were paying the same 17.5 percent on that. But when you combined that income, at $65,000, they should have been paying 30c on every dollar over that $48,000. So it is about $17,000 where they should have been paying 30 percent but they were only paying 17.5 percent. What happened was that often those who were the most disenfranchised ended up with a really big tax bill at the end of the year, which was deemed to be unfair and I completely agree with that. You know, if you are struggling to make ends meet, and the IRD comes to you and says “For that last $17,000 you have underpaid your tax by a few hundred dollars”—and it normally arrived at a really inconvenient time, when the car had blown up, or the kids were starting school, or the donations had increased at your local primary school. People just were not paying it. There is nothing worse, take it from me, than having a tax bill that you cannot pay.

What happens with that is that it accrues penalties and interest, and what starts as, actually, a small amount—and the Minister in the chair knows this—can actually explode into a significant amount due to the penalties and interest. The interest payment on non-payment of tax—it used to be about 10 percent, if not more. I am not too sure whether the Minister in the chair—was there any? I think there was some revision done around penalty tax interest rates, because it was just so high that it was becoming extortionary.

Hon Ruth Dyson: In this bill?

STUART NASH: No, no; in general. This bill still does cover the rate of secondary tax, there is no doubt about that. We are entering a stage where technology needs to be able to address these issues, and so what I am hoping is that when we are debating the 2017-18 tax-year rates there is no secondary tax rate in there. The reason I say that is that the IRD is spending $1.5 billion—let me say that again: $1.5 billion; that is a lot of money—on a whole new IT system. It is called the Business Transformation project. What we should be able to do with that is capture all the data from workers so they pay the right amount of tax at that point in time.

What a lot of people also do not know is the IRD owes New Zealanders $700 million. [Interruption] That rolls over every 4 years—it is true, Minister.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I know. I’m not denying it.

STUART NASH: Yes. And that rolls over every 4 years. I am aware that a lot of that money—not all of it, but a lot of that money—is actually little bits of rats and mice that are owed to people who have paid secondary tax but have not claimed it. There is a classic case: very good friends of mine employed an IT administrator. They convinced her to phone up WooHoo, or one of those tax refund companies, and see. She said: “I don’t know. No, there’d be nothing there.” In the end, she did anyway, and she ended up with a refund of $300. The reason she had that is that she had paid secondary tax because she was working two jobs, and I am just thinking that at that point in time, although the $300 was fantastic in her back pocket, I think she probably would have liked that $300 at the point in time at which she earned it. What we are really hoping for is that the next time we debate a Part 1 in the next tax bill there will be no secondary tax figure, because the IRD’s Business Transformation system will have sorted this out and addressed it.

I am going back to the annual rates of income tax. When we are talking about 2016-17 year, of course, we are talking about the Government’s fiscal year, which goes from 31 June to 1 July. Again, these tax rates have not changed since—oh, when did the Government drop the tax rate? Was it 2009?

Iain Lees-Galloway: I don’t know. They dropped it and then they put it back up.

STUART NASH: Yes, they dropped it. That was the promise when Mr Key said: “Read my lips—I will not increase GST.” And then he went ahead and said: “Oh, well, no. I was just kidding. Of course I’m going to increase GST.” But he had to increase GST. It was not the fact that he broke a promise because, you know, he just liked breaking promises. He had to increase GST, because they had lost so much—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! GST is not part of Part 1.

STUART NASH: Oh, sorry, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a very narrow debate. It is on clause 3, so it is a very narrow debate.

STUART NASH: Clause 1, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 1.

STUART NASH: Part 1. Oh, sorry, you are right, Mr Chair—clause 3. But the reason that these income tax rates drop to the level they are in clause 3 is that the Government needed to make up money from the rates that were dropped—the top rate from 39 percent down to 33 percent—which is where it is at the moment.

There is not too much more I can say on this—and I am sure a couple of my colleagues will jump up and talk about the inequity in these, but—

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to pick up where my colleague Stuart Nash left off. Part 1 of this bill, of course, relates to the annual rates of income tax for the 2016-17 tax year. Those who are observant will notice that we are getting close to the end of the 2016-17 tax year, which demonstrates the shambles that this Government finds itself in, that it is retrospectively legislating for the tax year that is just about finished.

I was interested to look at what proportion of the overall tax take income tax actually makes up, because, as Stuart Nash was pointing out, there was that tax shift between income tax rates. There was the lowering of the top personal tax rate, which, of course, is 33c in the dollar—that was brought down from 36c to 33c in the dollar—and that was offset by an increase to the rates of GST. The most recent data that I could find goes back to 2013-14, and if this is inaccurate because times have moved on—if things have changed since then, it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to this. But back in 2013-14, income tax, which this Part 1 sets and is setting retrospectively, made up 41 percent of the overall tax take, and it is the largest proportion of the overall tax take, which means, you know, we rely very, very heavily on salary and wage earners—working people—to pay the largest chunk of the overall tax take.

Of course, we have no wealth taxes in New Zealand. We have personal income taxes, and we have corporate taxes, withholding taxes, GST, and indirect taxes and levies such as ACC, fuel excise taxes, etc. We have no wealth tax, and that means that we demand an awful lot of working people—people who are on those moderate incomes, paying maybe the 30 percent rate—to make up 41 percent of the overall tax take. And, of course, 33 percent of the overall tax take comes from GST, which is, again, predominantly paid by ordinary working people when they go to the supermarket and buy their groceries.

So when this Part 1—clause 3 here, in Part 1 of this bill—reaffirms the personal tax take, it reaffirms this Government’s demand of working people to pay the vast majority of taxes. Corporate taxes make up only 13 percent of the overall tax take. So when this Government reduces the top tax rate and increases the GST rate, what it is actually doing is increasing the burden of the tax take on ordinary families. They are those who are struggling just to make ends meet, those who used to be able to afford to buy a house but for whom that is becoming an unrealistic dream, and those who just want to be able to put food on the table for the kids, who just want to be able to pay the rent, and who want to be able to pay the power bill, the gas bill, etc. Those are the people who are paying the bulk of taxes in New Zealand, because the rates of personal income tax, as set by clause 3 of this bill back in 2013-14—it may be more or it may be less now, but I do not know; the Minister would probably be able to enlighten us on that—make up 41 percent of the overall tax take, alongside 33 percent of GST.

And, of course, a sizable proportion of that is made up from secondary tax. Secondary tax had its place when people were predominantly working in one job. But these days we do see more and more people working multiple jobs, working part-time, being on contract work and what have you, or maybe receiving a benefit and working a few hours a week, and that attracts secondary tax, often for people who have the least and who struggle from week to week to be able to pay the bills and make ends meet. That is why secondary tax really has become a thing of the past, and a Government that was progressive and forward-thinking would have its eyes firmly fixed on removing that secondary tax take. I think I will conclude my contribution at that point.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC), I will say firstly something positive about this bill, given we have dispatched a number of tax bills—and, in fact, I have almost lost count of how many tax bills the committee has dispatched over the life of this Parliament. I will say that this is a better-quality bill, in terms of how it is put together, than bills we have dealt with in the past. I recollect—just as a brief sidebar—the brightline test, which was a complete shambles of legislation. I had never seen a tax bill where every accounting firm in New Zealand—the “big five” and the rest—came in and said: “This won’t work.” I recall other tax bills that we have dealt with through the FEC, such as the former Minister of Revenue’s bill around car-parks and computers, and all that sort of thing.

I just say in passing that the thing that has always worried me about these particular bills, speaking from my 18 years in this place and having been on the FEC a few times for a few of those years, is the way Ministers’ offices are dealing with these bills and some of the quirky, colourful, bizarre, and sometimes idiotic ideas that emanate from the bowels of the bureaucracy. In the past they would never have hit a Minister’s desk. They would never have hit a Minister’s desk, or, if they had hit a Minister’s desk, they would have had a lot of robust thinking and policy work around them. I mean no disrespect as such, particularly to the IRD, but when you lose people like former Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue Robin Oliver, whom I had the pleasure to hear submissions from when I was chair of the FEC—the advice that one received around these bills, the process, and the quality of the legislation was extremely high. But I say that this bill is an improvement on some of the legislation that has been rushed through in an ad hoc way, where, as I said, even the “big five” accounting firms have in the past been derisory in their views of it.

Clause 3 is self-evident. I do not think the ratings for the show this afternoon in terms of parliamentary listening will go through the roof as we progress through the Committee stage of this bill, but I will pick up on a couple of things that other colleagues have said. There is a principle around when you are setting tax rates. When you have a tax system, the tax system has to be simple and transparent—simple so that people can deal with it, and transparent so that it is easy to understand, you can work within the system, and, hopefully, the system can work for you and is accountable. But, as other colleagues have said, when the Government chose to reduce tax rates, one of the things that I think it forgot was this issue of equity.

There was an opportunity in terms of equity and fairness, as this bill was put together, to examine and look at the whole of the tax pie—to look at who is paying what and, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said, where the major burden of tax lies. He pointed out that 13 percent of our tax take is corporate. Some would argue that that is particularly low. The Government has made much of cracking down—or attempting or at least talking about it, or blowing a lot of hot air in respect of cracking down. I notice these multinational companies that, in the Government’s view, do not pay their fair share of tax. You know, we wait with bated breath to see those proposals. I would have thought I might have seen them with the previous Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, who I think holds the record, as I had said before, as the longest-serving revenue Minister in the Commonwealth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Back to clause 3.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We may have seen some of those—well, it is quite germane, and I will tell you why it is germane, Mr Chair. It is germane because when you put it together in Part 1, clause 3, you are confirming a set of tax rates, and the question is: are those tax rates fair? It is germane when the Government has purported, as I say, to make much of its so-called attempts to see whether multinational companies should pay their share of tax. That is not contained in this piece of legislation, nor in this clause.

Those who pay the tax—the middle class, those working people, and even those at the top and the corporates—do expect some accountability for the tax that they pay. For ordinary working folk, or for every New Zealander, they expect that that tax is utilised in such a way that they can, for instance, line up at a doctor’s or line up at a hospital and have their injuries or their illnesses dealt with. We have debated day after day and week after week in the life of this Parliament that we see degradation of the health system, and those people will be asking today, as we confirm these rates: “Well, am I getting the best bang for my buck? If I’ve been on a waiting list for 6 or 12 months, where are my tax dollars going?”.

The same argument may be made in respect of our police force. In terms of those people who have been impacted on, either through burglary or through assault or other crime, they may be listening to this debate today—or, as their local police may say to them: “Well, we’re under pressure”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —“of resources.” Those people, Mr Chair, are listening to this debate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Back to the annual rates.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —but it is germane—about clause 3. It has to be germane, if I am sitting at home today and listening to a debate about clause 3, in which this Committee is confirming a set of tax rates that, within that financial year, will raise revenue, and that revenue will be deployed amongst a variety of portfolios. It is germane for those listeners sitting at home to ask the simple question: are they getting the best bang for their buck out of these tax rates, which we confirm today? I do not quite see how it can be anything but germane to the debate—whether it be in respect of health, or the ACC, or people who are impacted on in respect of law and order. All those portfolios are funded, ultimately, out of the revenue.

The Minister sort of shakes her head. She is the Minister of Revenue, and she must at least know that clause 3 sets a rate of tax that will then generate income for the Government, and that that will be deployed in other portfolios. If she shakes her head, then there is something really wrong, and maybe we should sort of suspend the debate and maybe her officials should go and have a wee chat to her to explain the basis of raising taxes.

It would be interesting and it would have been interesting, as I think other colleagues have said, if the Government, in proposing clause 3, had put out there in a transparent way the total tax pie, so that we could have a clear debate as to who pays what. I say that, in confirming these rates, it will be interesting whether the Minister or her officials are prepared to stand up and answer some of the questions that we have put to them in terms of whether they think these tax rates are fair; whether there is a fair distribution across the board; whether they think that, in the case of, say, corporates on the 13 percent rate, they believe they are paying their fair share; or even—as a germane but side issue, as the debate continues—what their practical plans may be for eliciting further taxation from multinational companies, which they themselves, as members of the Government, say are not paying their fair share.

If they are not paying their fair share—OK, I think we could get a reasonable amount of consensus across Parliament on that. The question for the Government, as we move through this narrow clause 3, is what is it actually going to do about it? Presumably, it could make an alteration to these rates. If it was gaining more taxation out of, say, multinational companies, which it believes are not paying their fair share, then that may provide some equity, some fairness.

So it will be interesting to see whether the Minister will take a call. If she disagrees with my analysis that setting annual rates then allows you to tax people, and that tax is then raised by the Government and then deployed into portfolios like health, education, welfare, etc., etc., then I am prepared to take a lesson from her. I know she is extremely exquisite—

Hon Member: Erudite.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and erudite—I was talking about her arguments—in providing lectures for people. She has made an art form of it, in this place—the lectures, that is. Some of those lectures have sort of been her downfall, but, hey, she is here now. She has got back on the black leather in the Cabinet room, so we should celebrate that fact. But I will be interested if the Minister is prepared to respond.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on clause 3 in Part 1, “Annual rates of income tax for 2016-17 tax year”. I just want to say that it is very much indicative of the Government’s focus on tax and revenue at the moment, in that it does not seem to have any focus at all, whatsoever. Essentially, we are looking today at retrospective legislation to bring those annual rates into line. It speaks to me of a lack of discipline and perhaps too much revenue legislation in other areas that have been—I am going to say “slammed”. The tax industry was a bit more polite, in saying that perhaps there was a bit too much and it was getting a bit too confused, and they themselves were not able to keep up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to remind members, as I have heard the previous Chair remind members, that this is a very narrow part. We have accepted the principle of the part already, as part of the second reading, and all debate on this has to be very narrowly focused. So, general discussions about tax policy, speediness, and focus are not relevant.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thanks, Mr Chair. If that is the case, then I will come to the question around fiscal drag. We are dealing with clause 3, which speaks to annual tax rates. The question I put to the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Revenue, and to the Government is that you have not changed these rates since 2011, I think it was, and so in all that time, essentially, New Zealanders’ tax rates have been going up.

The question, Minister, is that considering that is 41 percent of the Government’s overall revenue base—coming from tax, that is—what is the Government’s position now? Is the Government prepared to make a stand and say that, actually, it is timely for us to talk about annual rates? Here is our opportunity now to say to low-income earners that “Actually, we’ve been taxing you too much, using these annual rates, and we need to adjust that. It is just not fair that you have been paying more tax because the Government has done nothing to address the rates as outlined in clause 3 in this legislation.”

Fiscal drag has become quite a popular conversation with New Zealanders and other members of the House. It is timely. It is pertinent. I personally think that low-income earners are missing out because of the lack of changes or lack of reflection on these annual rates. I put it to you that here is an opportunity to make a position statement for the Government on how it thinks it should be treating New Zealanders. I do not think the Government is treating them well at all. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Stuart Nash.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you, Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I was looking for an alternative, Mr Nash.

STUART NASH: I was not too sure whether you had forgotten my name, or you were looking for someone else.

There are a couple of points I would like to make about clause 3. First of all, we are talking about the annual rates of income tax for the 2016-17 tax year. That is the year that starts on 1 April 2016—

Hon Member: 1 April, or July?

STUART NASH: —sorry, 1 July 2016—and finishes on 30 June 2017. In my first contribution I talked about this being retrospective, but I do not know whether this is, because I am having a look at when the commencement date for this part of the bill is and, actually, I cannot find it anywhere in here as being retrospective. It does not make sense to me, because these are the tax rates for a financial year that actually started about 6 months ago, or 9 months ago. So by its very nature it must be retrospective, and yet I cannot find anywhere in the commencement clause—and I know we are debating clause 3, but it would be good to know when this clause actually does commence because, you know, in tax legislation we just cannot make an assumption that, because it is at the beginning of the 2016 tax year, we just assume that that is when it is going to be.

Tax legislation, by its very nature, must be very, very tight and very, very specific, because we know the consequences if it is not. The consequences of that are that men and women with huge brains who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find loopholes will make a substantial amount of money advising clients on how to get around these massive big bits of paper. I doubt that there is any consequence—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK, I have had time to look very carefully at the bill, and the very large clause 2 in the bill. If the member wants to discuss the commencement, he can do it during that clause. Now, going back to clause 3 in Part 1.

STUART NASH: Thank you, Mr Chair, but I do think it is important to know just when clause 3 actually does commence.

The other thing I would like to talk about is there is a quite a big regulatory impact statement and disclosure statement for this whole bill, but the interesting thing is there is one whole part that is missing from this regulatory impact statement, and that is Part 1. What it says on Part 1 is that “Although New Zealand has relatively strong tax settings, [etc.] … Changes in the economic environment, [etc.] … can mean that the tax system becomes unfair, inefficient, complex or uncertain.”

I would have thought that clause 3 in this bill at least deserves some form of commentary on whether it is still seen as fair, as efficient, and as fit for the environment, because there have been changes in the economic environment. I think that if we are talking about one whole part of a substantial piece of legislation, then the officials can at least do us the respect of letting us know whether they believe that Part 1 is fair in the changing conditions, because when clause 3 was implemented the economic environment was different from what it is now. When these tax rates were implemented, as outlined in Part 1, the environment was different, and I think that the officials should have outlined the arguments on whether Part 1 still fitted the economic environment—whether it still maintained the integrity of the tax system.

I am not saying that these rates outlined in Part 1 are right or wrong. I am not saying whether they should be higher or lower. I am not saying whether they should have taken account of fiscal drag, or anything along those lines. What I am saying is that as members of Parliament, we deserve commentary on whether they are still fit for purpose, and what we do not see anywhere in any commentary on this bill is any sort of analysis of Part 1—of the annual tax rates for the income year that we are in at the moment.

I do not think that is right, because this is a very important part of the bill, which affects nearly every single New Zealander who is paying taxes—in fact, not nearly every single New Zealander. It affects every single New Zealander, because when we are talking about annual tax rates, we are not just talking about income tax; we are talking about company tax rates, we are talking about trust tax rates, and we are talking about charity tax rates.

BARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

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.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This is debate on clauses 4 to 272, on the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261, on Ron Mark’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 inserting new clause 37B, and, obviously, on the rest of the part. I call Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Excellent. Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I rise to speak to Part 2, clause 262(48) and (56), with regard to grandparented Māori authorities. For fear of putting those in the gallery to sleep, I thought I had better ring some of my far more learned friends from university who are now accountants and tax specialists to ask for a little bit more detail about this particular bill and how it impacts on Māori authorities. What I got was a mixed response—a mixed response. Some see it as a good thing. Some see it as not quite a good thing, and probably have more questions around some of the issues I will raise in my contribution.

One of those things is, simply, the compliance costs. What we are saying is that somebody like Ngāti Whātua, who have been setting up their asset management structure since May 2016, can look forward to up to $1 million in compliance costs—$1 million in compliance costs—to make sure that they have the right mechanisms around limited liability structures. This is, I think, a gross injustice for the likes of Ngāti Whātua and their asset-holding arrangements, given that Māori authorities pre - May 2016 will have already been able to continue to operate under the old mechanisms.

One of the aspects I thought interesting in my discussions with my learned friend was around Māori authorities being considered as one share owner—the only and sole share owner—within those look-through companies. As a member who sits on quite a number of Māori trust boards, I say that is not the case. We know that Māori authorities that do actually sit in those look-through companies and hold the shares actually do not hold one share for everybody, but, in fact, hold multiple shares.

When I talk about compliance for the likes of Ngāti Whātua, I also think about Taranaki, who recently in this House had the third reading of their bill and had their settlement cross the line. In my discussion with them over this particular matter, they said that some of the compliance costs for them will range between $50,000 and $200,000. Is this fair on those types of organisations, which are trying to make good out of their settlements and their attempts at trying to share the wealth with their tribal members, that have worked hard over many years to get their settlements across the line?

Another question that the experts I spoke to also raised was that if they are set up under this new regime, which is the limited liability regime, for parts of a Māori authority, much of their particular operations under a limited liability scheme—although achieving what was required under the old regime—are yet to be tested in court. This was the advice given to me by a learned friend who contributed to a submission on this particular bill made by Ernst & Young on this matter. What they repeated to me was: “So then where does this leave all of those authorities since May 2016 that set up under a new limited liability regime? And what will it look like when they move into uncharted waters, where these particular regimes and structures have not been tested within a court?”.

These were some of the questions that actually described, probably, more negative responses towards this particular clause. Although they acknowledged that for some it is a good set-up because it will allow them to complete their time under the old regime—and hence the term they get is “grandparented Maori authority”, where there is a type of sunset clause—for those new—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE: For lack of choice, Mr Chair, I will continue. If I can just sort of sum up my contribution on this particular clause—how will it affect those who are not aware of the issue?

I mean that with respect. I spoke to several Māori authorities that are trying to set up their asset liability regimes now that actually were not even aware of what was happening. They looked at what I sent them as a question on these particular matters and said: “Peeni, what the hell are you talking about? What the hell are you talking about?”. That makes me concerned about where this might go, because these organisations—these Māori authorities setting up post-settlement governing entities and post-settlement asset management entities—are none the wiser as to what this means. I daresay when they look across to some of the other Māori authorities that are operating under the old regime, they will ask questions like whether this is fair, and what does this mean to them.

Just in conclusion, this particular clause, clause 262(48) and (56), works well for the Māori authorities that have been operating for a number of years now, but we know that there have been many more that have been coming online in the past year, and they will probably have more questions than they do answers. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would just like to carry on from the contribution from Mr Henare there, because I too went to a few of my local Māori authorities, and the trust and the iwi there, that operate using the Māori authority framework within the look-through company (LTC) mechanism. Just to be clear, what has been happening in the past is that because there have been so many multiple-ownership issues, and then the requirements around reporting and the obligations under the LTC around that, Māori have been able to use the look-through company mechanism as a way of meeting their obligations in terms of their tax requirements.

So I went and talked to the community in Rotorua there, and I would like to repeat, essentially, what Mr Henare said here. There was mixed feedback. First of all, several of the bigger operators said that it would not make much difference to them and they will probably carry on—I think I should acknowledge the Minister of Revenue here; I think with the grandparenting clause for our Māori authorities, we move into a position where there can be some certainty, but we will come back to the Supplementary Order Paper later—but then other Māori authorities were concerned about their tax liabilities literally changing under this new regulation. Essentially, they thought that they would be obliged to pay more taxes because of this change. So I do sincerely look to the Minister for guidance on that.

That was their interpretation of this legislation and the conversation was had around that, but then I would also add that many Māori authorities did not know what I was talking about, and they did not understand the implications on their tax requirements as they went away from that conversation. So what is the obligation on the Government to engage and have meaningful conversations with New Zealand stakeholders—taxpayers—around the obligations and changes thereof?

What I want to probably just finish on is that what the LTC issues focus on—and the Minister could answer the question here—is the way the beneficiaries were counted, determining whether the requirements that there be five or fewer counted owners, and whether the application of the Māori authorities and multiple ownership still applies in the new legislation. With the grandparenting clause, I also wonder about the Māori operations starting up businesses now. Everyone talks about the Māori economy and how gangbusters it is going. Well, you have changed the law on them, then you grandparented it so that some operations will continue to operate under an old system, and now we have got new ones coming on board and they will be obliged to operate differently. There is that collective knowledge that will not necessarily be able to effectively be passed on to new operations.

We have got a lot of issues there to be covered and a lot of concerns to be settled, Minister. So I put it to you that it is a great opportunity to address those in the Committee today.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Just a short call really, just to address some of the issues raised by the members who have resumed their seats. The question was raised—and then, really, answered—by Mr Tabuteau that the bill proposes that a look-through company (LTC) owned by a trust will lose its LTC status if the trust makes a distribution to a corporate beneficiary.

I am advised that “Charities and Māori authorities will be precluded from being LTC owners, directly or indirectly, under the proposed amendments. However”—and I will just be very technical here—“a trust that is a shareholder in a LTC will be able to make a distribution to a charity when the distribution is akin to a donation or is received by the charity as a residual beneficiary. [Charities and] Māori authorities that have ownership interests in LTCs immediately before the introduction of this Bill will be excluded from the prohibition.” So there is a grandparenting.

The bill also deals with annual amounts of foreign income earned by foreign-controlled LTCs. It says that they are limited to the greater of $10,000 or 20 percent of the LTC’s gross income in the relevant income year.

Mr Tabuteau is quite correct that it is changing the rules, but that is what Parliament does. There are many people who wonder why some businesses receive favourable—as they see it—tax treatment to other businesses, and some of the businesses that we are talking about are in direct competition with Kiwi-owned businesses that are actually not having that benefit. But, basically, I have answered the question that Mr Tabuteau posed, and I acknowledge that he has gone to the trouble of looking up the answer himself.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to raise a couple of questions in relation to the Minister of Revenue’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 261. In fact, I would just like to start by saying congratulations to the Minister on her appointment, because I do not believe I have had the opportunity to congratulate her on her new portfolios.

Just in relation to parts 1 and 2 in the explanatory note of that SOP, the Green Party really supports those, especially the pieces around the Kaikōura relief provisions—that is perfectly consistent with the previous legislation that we passed to help with the Kaikōura relief there—and also a number of the technical amendments that have come through in parts 1 and 2 of that. What we were confused about with part 3 of the SOP is that that does appear to be new policy that has been introduced at a late stage in the bill’s reading—in particular, the areas around new debt remission exceptions—and we could not see that that was terribly consistent with what had been introduced to the House earlier on in the process.

If the assessment that we have is correct, then we would say that that is quite poor process because, obviously, that has not been through any select committee process. There has been no regular regulatory impact statement that is attached to it and, as I said before, it is new policy. So it does seem to take the bill in a new direction. So I would like to get some input from the Minister as to why that has appeared at this point in the process, in this bill at this stage, because it does seem to be substantively different. If it is significant, then it would seem to make more sense to introduce that as a separate bill that could be debated properly, because in our view it does not necessarily match up fully with the other parts of the primary bill that we are debating.

So I would like to hear from the Minister a bit more about those provisions, especially around the new debt remission exceptions—why that has been introduced as an SOP rather than when the bill was first introduced in the House, or why it could not be introduced as a separate piece of legislation, if it is so significant. We would be quite keen to hear from the Minister on that. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise to take a call on clause 2, particularly Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 260 in my name. This is an issue that has been brought to my attention time and time again, not just by commercial property owners in rural, provincial New Zealand but by mayors and councillors—and local government in general—who are very worried about the implications of earthquake strengthening. We have tried on a couple of occasions in the House to get an SOP like this through in other pieces of the legislation. Once it was vetoed by the Government, using the financial veto, and we are hoping that this time, given the Minister of Revenue’s experience in taxation law, this Minister will be able to persuade the rest of her Cabinet to take a more business-friendly approach on this piece of legislation on this particular matter.

The SOP is very short and very simple. It makes a couple of amendments. One inserts subclause (30B) in clause 2, and the other one amends new clause 37B. Essentially, the guts of the legislation is in section DA 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, where we would insert in new clause 37B, after the words “of a capital nature”, the words “, unless they are seismic works where an EPB”—which is an earthquake-prone building notice—“has been issued for the building under section 133AK of the Building Act 2004”.

In our explanatory note, we talk about a couple of things. Firstly, this has been an issue that has been raised on occasion by major chartered accountants such as KPMG and others, and, in fact, the Property Council of New Zealand has noted this in an April 2014 submission. We agree with them that this amendment will redress and correct what we see, they see, and commercial property owners see as an anomaly in the inland revenue Act where the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) is required to classify earthquake strengthening as capital works.

The argument we put is that it is absolutely baffling that if a building in Wellington is ripped apart, the repair work to put that building back together is classed as repairs and maintenance, but if in doing that work the owner of the building has to strengthen other parts of the building to bring it up to code as well, then that work is not considered to be repairs and maintenance. It is considered to be capital works.

Our proposition is this. If a building sitting in the middle of Waipawa is declared through a letter from the council to be earthquake-prone and, therefore, has to undergo strengthening, and if that strengthening work does nothing more than strengthen the building—it does not alter its shape, does not alter its capacity, does not alter its utility; it simply makes the building the same as it was but makes it fit the new code—where is the capital gain? In fact, the moment that letter is issued, the value on that building plummets. Unfortunately, the insurance premiums skyrocket. Unfortunately, tenants, who are looking at the new occupational safety and health laws and at their commitment to their staff, exit, and the landlord is now left with a building that is seriously devalued and of questionable economic worth as an investment.

Undertaking the strengthening work simply restores the building back to its previous utility prior to it receiving a letter deeming it to be unsafe. We would say that that in itself is a strong argument for the Government accepting our view, KPMG’s view, and the Property Council’s view that this work should be tax deductible.

Here is the next point. We are looking throughout New Zealand right now, and there are a lot of commercial properties—in rural New Zealand, in particular—that run the serious risk of being left empty. Most of these owners are looking for an incentive or a bit of leverage to assist them in their ability to conduct this work. Being able to claim tax deductibility for that work and, in some cases, the remediation of their buildings—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ron Mark, but start narrowing it up now, please.

RON MARK: We will. In some cases, for these little buildings—wooden buildings—the work could be $65,000. It could lead to fire protection work, which under the new Building Act is required to be done when substantive work such as earthquake strengthening is done. It can blow those costs out to 100 grand. Being able to get a tax write-off legally, with assistance from the Government and assistance from the IRD, would incentivise and alleviate the pain that many of these commercial property owners are going through right now, and it would go some way to preventing the gutting out, or the creation of ghost towns in provincial New Zealand.

We implore the Government to look strongly and favourably at this SOP and give some alleviation to many, many commercial property owners throughout rural New Zealand—well, throughout the whole of New Zealand. But, of course—being one who lives in rural New Zealand—in New Zealand First, we are particularly worried about the possibility of us having ghost towns right throughout the country. That is something that would not be good for the economy as a whole.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): I will just take a short call to answer a couple of the questions that have been raised by members. Mr Shaw asked about the debt remission rules. The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 261 actually clarify the provisions of the bill. They are only very technical, and there are no new policy changes.

Mr Mark’s SOP 260—well, Mr Mark, you will be thrilled to know that I raised these very same questions when I first became the Minister of Revenue. I raised them with the Inland Revenue Department, and it reminded me, of course, that in 2010 the policy settings around depreciation of buildings was changed so that, generally, the value of buildings is not considered to be something that is rightly depreciated these days. I think a lot of people probably supported that. It had been leading to some very unusual outcomes in terms of investment decisions. So I have also asked around the repairs and maintenance as opposed to a capital item. When the department explained it to me, I actually felt quite convinced by it. It said that, essentially, what you are doing in earthquake strengthening is you are creating not just the same building, not just repairing it—what you are really doing is actually creating a building to a different standard, a different code, and it is actually about creating almost a new building. So I know that you are not going to agree with that, but that is, essentially, the answer.

I think it is also decided that one of the best ways for Government—some people might feel that the Government has an obligation to help, in some way, people who own buildings, commercial properties, where there is earthquake strengthening to be done. There are also options around grants, and that is why there are some provisions, actually, particularly for heritage buildings. In fact, I can just give you the programme. It is the Heritage Earthquake Upgrade Incentive Programme fund, which will put $12 million over the next 4 years towards the cost of strengthening privately-owned commercial buildings. So I know it is not the answer that the member seeks, but it is something that I have raised. I understand the concept as to why it would not be available, particularly when we have a non-deductibility, generally, or non-depreciation of other commercial properties.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I was not quite sure I heard that right. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It comes as a big surprise that you chose to call me for a contribution in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I looked at the member, and the member is a senior member of the House, and lives in an earthquake area.

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right. It just was not noticed earlier in the five attempts that I made to get a call. I guess that is why it came to me as a surprise.

Can I begin my contribution on Part 2 of this bill also, in the way that James Shaw did, by acknowledging the Minister on her elevation to this position, and by saying that I am particularly pleased that a woman is in one of these financial roles. It has not happened very often, with some of the predecessors that we might have looked to. You might not want to be compared to previous Ministers of Finance, but I like seeing women in the economic space rather than in just the social portfolios. This reminds me how disappointed I am that we do not seem to have any women represented on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that considered the submissions on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Not relevant to this part, thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well, actually, it is relevant because those were the very members who considered the submissions on the part that I am going to speak to now.

Part 2 covers clauses 4 to 272, so a huge number of clauses. I want to make my initial contribution in relation to the tax rule changes in regard to look-through (LTC) companies, which are primarily around clause 262, but they do cover others. There is a package of amendments, and I guess rather than just make a contribution about their merits or not, I am really interested in asking for the Minister to continue what I think has been a very good practice of responding to the questions that are raised.

The reason that I want to ask them—and it often happens in tax legislation, particularly in areas like this where we are looking at changes that are recommended for closely held companies and look-through companies—is that we get people who are tax experts coming to the committee and making their submissions, and then the Government says no and it just completely disagrees and ignores them. I guess that is the question: what is the reason that some of these—what I think to be substantial—contributions that have been made have been turned down by the Government?

Firstly—and these are, as I said at the beginning, all in relation to clause 262—there were submissions from KPMG, from the Law Society, and from OliverShaw relating to the proposed restrictions on the amount of foreign income that an LTC can earn when controlled by foreign owners. They made substantial submissions—these are not fly-by-nighters; this is the New Zealand Law Society, which I think Minister Judith Collins is quite familiar with, and KPMG, and OliverShaw—and those were just rejected by the Government.

What I want to know is: does the Minister believe that their submissions were an error? Did they misunderstand the proposals in clause 262 in Part 2 of this legislation? Did they misunderstand them? Were they trying to get something that was not intended by the policy frame in which this bill was designed? Or did the Minister just disagree with their point, for whatever other reasons? I would like to ask that question about that specific proposal—the amount of foreign income that an LTC can earn when controlled by foreign owners.

Then, along a similar line—if I can just find the other one that I was really interested in. This is a proposed amendment to how trustees and beneficiaries are counted, and, again, it is that same clause—clause 262. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, and again KPMG, and again the New Zealand Law Society, and also PricewaterhouseCoopers made substantial submissions, again, on that narrow point—the proposed amendments to how trustees and beneficiaries are counted. Those submissions were heard by the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the Government just said no.

There are a few more that have different considerations, but the theme is quite strong and consistent throughout these submissions. It causes me, as a member of Parliament who was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, some concern that we have not had any explanation from the committee members either in the second reading or during this debate, to my recollection, so I am asking the Minister, on those two points—and I will go over some more as well—whether she can clarify why these substantial and considered submissions just got ruled out by the Government. I want to go on to a couple of others that are along a similar line, but all of them are in clause 262 and all of them were made to the select committee. Mr Chairman, the bell should have gone then. Should I wait?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you. I am still hanging out for that bell to be rung.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Given the alternative.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I did not see the opposition. The one I just talked about was the trustees and beneficiaries. The next one that I want to ask about—exactly the same. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand is a group of people whom we would have some trust in to understand tax law—their job is, in part, deciphering it, understanding it, explaining it to people, and, in their business, making sure that the tax rules are complied with. They put in a substantial submission about the simplification of the transitional role for trust fees. Again, the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard it—talking about the transitional roles for the phasing in of the new requirements: how long they are going to be backdated for and how many years it will take to implement it. I think, on the face of it—on reading their submission and looking at the issues that they raised—that they made some valid points, and, again, those were just absolutely declined.

The extension of the calculation period, people receiving LTC, and the beneficiaries receiving their LTC income being rotated—one solution would be to remove the 4-year time limit, so the beneficiary would be counted if they had a distribution of LTC as beneficiary income in any income year.

That was the point that was being made, again by PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is an organisation that does this work all the time. They made a submission on quite a detailed part of clause 262, and, again, it was just thrown out. I have been on the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the past and I understand that quite often in tax legislation—as it might be in these provisions in clause 262 that I have alluded to—it may be that the submitters misunderstood the point of the legislation; they might have got clause 262 wrong. They might be trying to develop a little loophole that could be to their clients’ advantage in the future—that would be a pretty cynical view. Or, it is possible that the officials and the Minister—I guess it was the previous Minister—made an error in their determination that these should be rejected.

But when you get organisations that are credible and do this work as part of their job—I want to understand why those submissions were declined. They are all under the loosely held companies review, all in relation to clause 262. But if you look at the analysis of the submissions and the report back from officials, this has been a piece of legislation that has had high quality and substantial input into it. I hope that we can feel, as we go through the Committee stage, that we can enhance the consideration that the select committee gave, but we cannot do this adequately unless there is an explanation to the Committee of the whole House of the questions, such as those I have raised, in relation to the submissions, the points they raised, and why they would not be accepted.

Likewise, in relation to Ron Mark’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 260—I heard Mr Mark’s contribution to it and I thought it was a very good one, a very helpful one. I heard the Minister’s response and I thought it was a little bit short cut, in relation to the substance of the issues. So I hope we can have a further look at that SOP before the Committee stage is through.

I suppose the advantage of the Committee of the whole House is that this is the opportunity for us to have members of the select committee—in this case, the Finance and Expenditure Committee—share with us all the debate that they went through. We can share their knowledge, and get some better understanding of what they considered and how they did it. I hope that some of the Government members of that select committee are able to share their wisdom. It may not take all that long, but it would be really helpful, I think, to the quality of the debate.

We are doing weird things in this bill, as we did in the last part, which we have already moved on from—setting tax rates for a year that has nearly concluded. In this part that we are debating now, Part 2, we are making major changes to a wide range of current tax rules—268 clauses of amendments to tax rules, some of them as a result of a review; some of them as a result of concerns that the officials have, which have been accepted by the Minister. I hope that we have a better contribution from Government members and, again, I want to acknowledge the responses from the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call the next member, I do want to compliment the member Ruth Dyson on being relevant, but I make a request, which is that in future people look fairly carefully at the clauses and the subclauses. Rather than just say that it is in clause 262—when something has 117 subclauses, some of which themselves have subparagraphs, it would helpful, for both the Minister in the chair and me in making our judgments, if members could refer to the subclauses that they are referring to.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There are two areas of this bill that I would like to talk about. The first one is actually to back up Ron Mark of New Zealand First. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 260, set down by Ron Mark—thank you to the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, for outlining the IRD’s response to this. But if you could indulge me the right to reply to that, the Minister did mention that in 2010 there was a change in rules around depreciation of buildings, and what the IRD has said is that buildings do not normally depreciate, and therefore it really does not make much sense. The thing is that that seems a very Auckland- or Wellington-centric view. There are a whole lot of small places in provincial New Zealand, like Eltham—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt now, and I am going to apologise to the member for interrupting him and not interrupting the Minister. But a discussion about depreciation changes that happened 5 or 7 years ago is actually not relevant to the bill. I mean, a vague passing reference would be fine, but we cannot—the member can debate either the part or Mr Mark’s SOP. Again, I want to reiterate my apology for not interrupting the Minister, but we just cannot let this debate go on, because we could have another hour on things that are not relevant now.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just noticed that while you were ruling, the clock was running. I just want to ensure that Mr Nash gets his full time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is my instruction. When I interrupt a member because they are not being relevant, then the clock will run. If there is another point of order, generally the clock will stop, but I will still make a judgment. A couple of members might have noticed that they were stopped early. Their speeches were not terminated; they just did not get credit for good behaviour.

STUART NASH: The reason I did mention this is that the heart of Mr Marks’ SOP is: “to redress significant tax disadvantages faced by commercial, industrial, retail, and heritage property owners when looking to bring buildings above the earthquake-prone building threshold required by the Building Act.” What the Minister actually said is that the IRD believed that it was actually creating almost another building. I think those were the Minister’s words, and I think she meant to say that. I get that on one perspective. What we have done without changing the legislation, and it might have been an unintended purpose, is that we have taken a building that was within code—it was legal; there was nothing wrong with that building, and it was valued as such—and we have actually changed the law to move that building from being legal to now being illegal. I could mount a counterargument that, in fact, what the IRD has done by actually changing the law is take a building and, again, move it into another category. That is counter to what the Minister was saying.

What we actually may see here is something that Mr Mark alluded to, but it could be slightly worse than that. Mr Mark has said in his Supplementary Order Paper: “Without this amendment, many buildings may be demolished without replacement, especially in provincial New Zealand.” The reason that may happen is that the cost of actually rehabilitating that building, or getting it up to code, is more than the value of that building, but I see a scenario where it could actually be worse than that. Let me give you an example. A building in Waipawa has got a value—this is not a real-world example, just a hypothetical one, and I do know Waipawa, because it is a quaint little town with nice heritage buildings. It might have a commercial value of $200,000. The cost to remediate that building is $300,000. That building is held in a separate company, as these things tend to be these days. Instead of the building owner saying “I’m going to pull down that building.”, what that building owner may actually say is: “I’m going to walk away from this company. So not only am I not going to demolish this, I’m going to leave this.”

So at some point in time, the territorial authority will have a statutory requirement to either make that building safe or pull it down. The onus moves from the owner of that building to the ratepayers and the council. I can see a potential scenario where, in fact, that building is not pulled down by the owner but it is a cost incurred by the council as it has to pull the building down itself. If I am right in saying this—the Minister may correct me on this—I think the Government has given councils in provincial areas 10 years to remediate any building that does not come under the code. If I come to my home town of Napier, which, of course, was rebuilt after the 1931 earthquake, if a building was built before 1935, it automatically is discounted by 20 percent, I think, on what constitutes being in code.

There are two things I would say to the Minister’s response to this SOP. First, has the IRD a mandate to actually look at the social cost of not implementing a piece of legislation; if so, how does it quantify that? I think what Mr Mark—I do not want to put words in Mr Mark’s mouth, obviously—is talking about here is not only the fiscal cost but the social cost that a council or a town might incur if, in fact, this is not allowed to be expensed. This is a problem all over New Zealand. I visited a gentleman in Eltham, and he owned half a block. It is just not worth him spending the money getting that up to code.

The other thing I would like to say on this is that $12 million over 4 years put forward by the heritage fund is very generous, and I commend it for that, but I think $12 million—let us say it is roughly $3 million a year. [Interruption] Sure, but just answering the Minister’s—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You cannot answer an irrelevancy with an irrelevancy.

STUART NASH: Sure, but that is possibly about three or four buildings a year. It really does not address the problem in any way, shape, or form.

The other thing I would like to briefly allude to is clause 42 in this bill, which actually covers inserting new section DW5 and all the subsections on that, through to new section DW6. It is about aircraft operators, aircraft engines, and aircraft engine overhauls. We had a really interesting debate in the select committee. This was brought forward by David Seymour. I do not know whether Alan Gibbs said I had a problem with my airport maintenance, but I would not like to say that at all.

It is a sensible amendment; there is no doubt about that. But I suspect there are some unintended consequences. The reason I say it is a sensible amendment is that the engine of an aircraft needs a much higher level of maintenance than, say, the body of an aircraft or the wheels or any other part of an aircraft, and rightly so—rightly so. I do not want to disagree with that. But what this actually requires now is the purchaser of an aircraft to actually separate the value of the engine from the value of the aircraft itself. I am assuming there is a simple model that will allow the sellers of aircraft to do this, or insurance assessors who look at aircraft and say: “OK, what we can do is let’s have a model”—it is not in here, Mr Chairman, but I am making a hypothetical assumption—“that the engine of the aircraft is worth, let’s say, 50 percent of the whole aircraft itself. Therefore, if you are purchasing an aircraft for $10 million, the value of the engine is $5 million.”

I do not know whether it is as simple as that, and the Minister may well know. If it is as simple as that, then it makes this a little easier to implement. If it is not as simple as that, then I am really interested to know how the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is going to deal with this when someone comes and says: “I bought an aircraft for $10 million. It consists of a little bit of aluminium, some rivets, a little bit of leather and a really big engine, because without that engine, this thing doesn’t get off the ground. Therefore, I reckon it’s worth about 90 percent of the value of the aircraft.” If that occurs, then I believe the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is going to be forced to rule on some standardised model that will allow aircraft owners and aircraft engine maintainers to comply with, because it could be all over the place.

When we look at this, there are certain things you are not allowed to do. For example, if you buy an aircraft, like one of those old Harvards that I think the air force uses for its trip planes, and you just maintain the engine for standard use, that is fine, but if you want to modify the engine, then you cannot claim anything back, which sort of makes sense in a way, but it is sort of interesting as well. It does not include gliders, which is good to know; Richie will not be under any more tax obligations.

But the other thing also—it is interesting here, and I will read this. This is new section DW5(3), “Deduction for aircraft engine when acquired for price”. The wording is very interesting here. It says that if the person acquires—other than as an unpriced aircraft engine with the aircraft—an aircraft engine for use with the aircraft, the person has a deduction. The wording that is interesting is “other than as an unpriced aircraft engine with the aircraft”. I suspect what was happening is a whole lot of people were buying an aircraft and saying: “The engine’s just part of it; it’s not unpriced.” That is why I am saying that a new model is going to have to come into existence.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ah, no. I think we have had a bit of original stuff—Ron Mark.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I appreciate the opportunity just to once again address my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 260 and, in particular, some of the comments that the Minister has made in defence of the Government’s not accepting it. I think the one I want to pick up on—and I will probably leave it to my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to talk about the depreciation argument—is the heritage buildings. We are not convinced that that argument stacks up, because what the Minister probably has not realised is that many of these buildings are not declared as being heritage. They are not listed as heritage buildings, but they are buildings that hold the character of the province and the district. So in that sense they have high aesthetic value and add high character value to those provincial towns. It does not matter whether you go to Twizel, Eltham, Stratford, or up to Waipukurau, there are buildings there that speak volumes to the history but have not been listed as heritage buildings.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The time is very close to my leaving the Chair for the dinner break, but before I do that, I am going to give a warning that the member is now repeating things that he said earlier and others have said since. So after dinner there is going to be a requirement to be much tighter.

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

RON MARK: I just wanted to address that comment from IRD, and New Zealand First has to make this point. For IRD to argue that the Minister should reject our SOP 260, with one of the arguments being that there is heritage funding available for old buildings—whether it is $12 million or what; it does not really matter—is ridiculous, because the overwhelming majority of the affected buildings that we are discussing do not have heritage orders and, therefore, they are not eligible to apply for that funding assistance.

So we are back to square one, where we are facing an issue. We are being told this by such people as Ross McKinley, KPMG’s National Managing Partner for Taxation, who noted last year: “Many building owners may be considering demolishing or abandoning earthquake-prone buildings if an anomaly in tax treatment is not remedied.” That is what this SOP aims to do. Without it, Mr McKinley added: “IRD’s stance creates a contradiction. … In other words, … owners can claim a tax loss if a building collapses but no tax relief for trying to ensure it does not collapse in the first place.” Well, that is just nonsensical, and provides, perversely, a disincentive for those challenged property owners to undertake the work and not abandon the building.

I do not think people are possibly grasping the size and the magnitude of the problem. There are estimates out there saying that seismic works across New Zealand range from $4 billion—that is according to the Government’s own Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—to the figure estimated by Tailrisk Economics. It estimates the figure could be $5 billion to $7 billion worth of work. That is not to improve the quality of the building, the usability of the building, the functionality of the building, or the capability of the building, and I want to draw, actually, the Government’s attention to its own piece of legislation.

If you are going into clause 42, which inserts new sections DW 5 and DW 6 into the Income Tax Act, it is really interesting because there is a lot of stuff here, shaded, about aircraft maintenance engine overhaul. Just briefly perusing through that, I, as a former mechanical engineer in my earlier days, look at that clause with interest, and does it not strike one as strange that if one is carrying out repair and maintenance work on an aircraft engine that does not change the performance of the engine, but it simply returns it to the required aviation standards to permit it to be used in the air, it is tax deductible.

We could argue that many of these buildings that are affected were not even damaged in the last earthquake, which destroyed modern buildings in this city. They are functional, but because of a little sticker that is going to be put on the window, they will be deemed by legislation to be unsafe. It has nothing to do with the building and nothing to do with its design at all, actually, because it has withstood the 1854 earthquake.

Take the Thistle Inn, just down the road here. The Thistle has withstood every major earthquake and not popped a screw. But if that building is deemed by the council, under the new legislation, to require strengthening, that work will have to be done at a cost. It does not change the Thistle. It does not alter its characteristics or its usability. It does not add an extra—it will still have the same number of toilets, the same bar space, the same conference room space. It will just be brought up to meet the Government’s specifications and, therefore, will return its value to what it was before it got a letter saying it was non-compliant with the legislation.

We just ask what has often been touted as a Government that is pro-business and business smart, a Government that aims to reduce compliance costs, and a Government that wants to promote productive expenditure and not cause undue unnecessary costs to reflect on the IRD advice and challenge it, because we do not think that making this adjustment is going to be helpful to the economy and we do not think that it is going to be helpful to provincial New Zealand, or to anywhere in New Zealand, actually. For the IRD to tell the Minister “Oh, but they’ve got access to heritage funding.”, knowing full well that, overwhelmingly, most of the affected buildings—be they in Napier, Waipawa, Dipton, or on the West Coast—are not going to have heritage status is simply naughty. It is quite naughty, actually.

So we would say to the Minister, reject IRD’s advice. Tell it to go away and do its homework. Sit down and have a talk to KPMG, sit down with Ross McKinley, and talk to the Property Council and do a quick analysis of the costs of not doing this.

Let me just reiterate, finally—before I sit down—that the cost of not giving something of a tax break by recognising this work as repairs and maintenance will be that many buildings throughout New Zealand stand to be abandoned and left. And many buildings will stand to be demolished because it is going to be quicker and easier to knock an old building down, despite its character, and put up one of these new flat-roof things, which are dead boring and ugly, quite frankly.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to look at the clauses that relate to the look-through company (LTC) entry tax, of which there are several in this Part 2 of the bill. Clauses 14, 106, 178, 239, and 262 all deal, in their own part, with the matter of look-through company entry tax. Look-through company entry tax, for those who are following along at home, is the tax adjustment that applies when a company becomes a look-through company. The purpose of that is to trigger a tax liability on unimputed retained earnings by deeming the company to have been liquidated immediately prior to conversion. This is to ensure that reserves that would generate taxable income for shareholders, if distributed before entering the LTC regime and that would be distributed tax-free once the company becomes an LTC, are taxed to the owners at the time of entry. So it is about fairness of taxation, essentially, and ensuring that shareholders are not able to use the conversion of a company to a look-through company as a method for minimising their tax liability.

What this bill does is it tightens up the formula to ensure that shareholders are neither overtaxed nor under-taxed, because the formula as it currently stands means that the tax rate applied is the company tax rate of 28 percent. This bill amends that to make the tax rate that would be applied the owner’s personal tax rate, and that is designed to ensure that the tax rate applied is appropriate—neither overtaxing nor under-taxing the shareholder.

It was not without opposition. The Whyte Group appeared before the select committee and it expressed some concerns that tightening up the look-through company entry tax rate would provide a disincentive to existing companies that may be considering entering the LTC scheme but might be put off by this new tax treatment, especially if that resulted in a higher tax rate for owners.

The committee, I understand, considered that and came to the conclusion that the application of the owner’s marginal tax rate is the appropriate course of action because the entry tax calculation is intended to ensure that retained earnings are appropriately attributed to shareholders at their personal tax rates, and currently upon entry taxpayers can be under-taxed when their marginal tax rate is greater than the 28 percent and overtaxed.

So I think on balance the position the committee got to was that it should not offer a disincentive, because it is just as possible that an owner’s tax rate would fall as a result of these changes—you know, the potential tax liability would fall as it would increase. So I think, overall, in the interests of having greater fairness in the way we apply tax rates—we talked earlier on about where the tax burden falls—I think it is important that when tax rates are applied, they are applied in a fashion that demonstrates as much fairness as possible. Taxing the owners at their marginal income tax rate, the rate that is appropriate for them given all their income combined, rather than an arbitrary 28 percent—that, I think, is the appropriate course of action. I think that any concerns that people might have that this might offer a disincentive to companies to become LTC companies through the LTC regime are unfounded. I think that the approach that has been taken by the select committee on this is the fair one, is the right one, and all in all the approach, particularly through clause 262, is appropriate and we can support that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): I will just take a call to address some of the questions that have been raised. Mr Mark has made some quite impassioned pleas in relation to his Supplementary Order Paper. One of the issues I think we need to consider is what the best use of the tax system is. We have in New Zealand a broad based, low rate system that has been in place now—and a commitment to that—actually over many different Governments for well over 20 years; really 25, 30 years. It has proven to be something that a lot of other countries and jurisdictions would like to have. So the question is, really, when we are looking at earthquake strengthening, whether it is right for Government to use the tax system to subsidise that or whether there are other methods apart from the heritage way.

I think one of the things you need to consider is that if you are a church, for instance, and you have a tax-free status, a tax break is not going to help you with the earthquake strengthening of your building. It is the same if you are a charity of any other sort. It is not going to help you; it is only going to help people who actually have a tax liability. It is not going to help companies or businesses that are not profitable; it will help only those who do have a tax liability. I do not think it is the panacea. As I said, I have certainly questioned IRD. As I say, I really enjoy our policy discussions. I really love being in the tax area again after years in Parliament and not actually practising tax any more. So it is something that we are keeping an eye on, but the question is that it is not actually the panacea, in my opinion.

There were some questions raised by the Hon Ruth Dyson around the submissions from the various tax experts in places like PricewaterhouseCoopers or CAANZ, the Chartered Accountants of Australia and New Zealand, and the New Zealand Law Society—and I must say I did appreciate the reference, thank you, Ms Dyson. I think it is important to understand that we also have a generic tax policy process in New Zealand, and, again, we are envied in this country for that. What that actually means is that a lot of the tax changes that happen in New Zealand—unless they are to do with rates, and they are part of a Budget process, generally—they are very much signalled to and consulted with interested tax professionals from both accounting and law firms, to such a degree that one of the big issues that many of the tax professionals wanted to ask me about was whether they would still be consulted in that way. I was able to assure them that, yes, they are whenever possible.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee took into account those submissions. They did make some changes based on those submissions, having heard from very experienced submitters. I would also say that Inland Revenue has its fair share of tax experts. I mean, this is what they do; they are some of the most highly qualified tax experts in the country. But this is not a competition about who has got the better experts. The tax professionals are, in my opinion, some of the most highly professional people, who provide the best advice that they can to the department and to the select committees. But, actually, they also want to promote positions on behalf of their clients. They do promote, I think, in many ways an extremely professional demeanour and integrity. They show a great deal of integrity in their relationship with Government and with the Inland Revenue Department. So I can assure the member that they have been taken into account—that some proposals were changed. I understand from those on the committee that they gave those submissions full consideration and were very respectful of them.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare, oti noa, tēnā tātou katoa. I would like to speak to clause 262(48). First of all, I want to give some comments—my overview of clause 262. I take from the submissions from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Whyte Group that they said that this clause, overall, was unnecessarily complex and restrictive and that it would increase compliance costs. That grabbed my attention.

Later on in this sitting day—tomorrow morning, in extended time—there will be two bills. They are Treaty bills. I mention that because subclause (48) is around Māori authorities. My understanding is that the iwi concerned tomorrow will have less opportunity under these changes than iwi that have settled previously. I mention that because a key part of the settlement process is actually relativity to previous claims.

I mention that because this grandparented clause, although I agree with it in the context that has been explained—that is, that this bill protects those interests of those Māori authorities—in the instance of those iwi that have already settled, how do you address the issue of relativity for Treaty settlements that will pass tomorrow and into the future? That is a question that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, around the impact of this on all future claims—on all future settlements.

I think, when I read through the submissions from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and KPMG on this subclause—they write that “the current … grandparenting provision provides wider concessions than was intended.” As I understand it, the Māori authorities go back as far as 1939. There was a commission of inquiry in 1952, and then there were substantial changes made to this in 2004. There is a very good reason why you would have Māori authorities. When you think about the context of the Treaty claim settlement and the value of redress—and we are talking about redress, not compensation. If we were talking about compensation, there would probably be no need for Māori authorities having a different tax rate. My point is that we are not talking about compensation for these claims. The reason why, as I understand it, Māori authorities have concessions around the tax rates and around the conditions such as this in subclause (48) of clause 262 is in recognition of the fact that, No. 1, they are providing a service to all of the beneficiaries of the trusts and entities that they operate under, and, also, No. 2, it is a kind of recognition of the fact that they will receive redress, not compensation. My question is exactly that: why, then, are we changing this? Why not just leave it, and then we would not have to have the grandparented clause. It would just remain as it is.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you for the opportunity to address that question. First off, let me apologise to Mr Rurawhe, because I clearly did not make myself properly—I did not make my meaning as well I should have. Actually, although there is a grandparenting clause in relation to the look-through companies that will apply to the Māori authorities, there is also an opportunity for the Māori authorities just to use the limited partnership structures, which have, actually, pretty much the same effect as a look-through company. The new ones coming through will not be, necessarily, taxed at different rates because of the fact that there will be the limited partnership provisions that they can still make use of. So I hope that that clarifies it for the member, and that he can now be satisfied that Māori authorities are not going to be suddenly faced with another issue that they were not aware of.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure, actually, to take a call on this Committee stage debate of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I specifically want to talk to the Supplementary Order Paper of Ron Mark. We have had a few engagements tonight because I think at the heart of what he is concerned about is the fact that there are going to be some buildings that will not be restored to 34 percent of the current new building standard, which, actually, is the requirement to be classified for an earthquake-prone building (EPB) notice. He has some legitimate concerns. He could not answer my question, because I wanted to know what “n” is—like, how many buildings are in this particular category—but what I have been able to find out, Minister Collins, which I think is really fascinating, is that there are 868 in Christchurch. They have a register, and we know that there are 868 earthquake-prone buildings.

I know that people have been talking about the issue of repair deductibility around repair and maintenance expenditure, and I was really interested in the numbers because I was wondering how much we are talking about. For Christchurch, I have discerned from a couple of googles that I have managed to do tonight in the Chamber, the cost was $20 billion to repair all the buildings in Christchurch, of which the insurance sector seems to have picked up 80 percent of that. I am wondering whether $4 billion is about the estimate for those 868 Christchurch properties that have an EPB notice attached to them.

Just following through logically, because I am trying to make a constructive contribution to this debate tonight, under section DA 2 of the Income Tax Act, which Mr Mark is wanting to amend, “General limitations”, there is “Capital limitation”, and what it actually reads is: “A person is denied a deduction for an amount of expenditure or loss to the extent to which it is of a capital nature.” Then he has inserted “, unless they are seismic works where an EPB notice has been issued …”. I do not agree with his proposition—not generally. What I do agree with is in respect of those buildings that have actually sustained damage through an event—and we know what those events were; there have been two earthquakes in Christchurch, so we know what those events are. Should there be provision—because this is what this is all about—for deductions based on them being classified as repairs and maintenance?

I guess this is my question to the Minister, because from the information that I have managed to read—I found the Interpretation Statement IS 12/03, which is “Income Tax - Deductibility of Repairs and Maintenance Expenditure - General Principles”, what it says is that there is a general rule that costs for repair or maintenance or that restore an asset to its original condition without going so far as to reconstruct, replace, or renew, will qualify as repairs and maintenance.

I am interested in buildings that have, we know, been damaged because there has been an event—so I’m speaking specifically about Christchurch—and whether or not then they can be seen as not capital, because if they were seen as capital then they would not be deductible, but if they are revenue, whether or not they would not qualify. So I would limit the scope of what Mr Mark has tried to do, because he wants it for the whole of the country and areas of the country where we have not had an event. But I am now specifically focused on Christchurch and whether there is some merit to what he is proposing, but only for buildings in Christchurch where we have had an earthquake.

I just wondered whether the Minister, obviously, had an interest in this area. She asked her officials to make some recommendations to her. I would be interested in whether or not there has been some specific thought around providing support for business owners and qualifying buildings under this regime—whether or not there could be a look at the rules in respect of this particular cohort of qualifying EPB notice holders. Kia ora.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 13

Green Party 13.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the name of Ron Mark to insert new clause 37B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 76

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to other enactments

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Stuart Nash.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, very good choice.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Hobson’s choice, I think they call it. I would like to talk about clause 321, which amends section 45(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act. This is interesting, and it is something I have been talking about for a long time, actually, but it is only a very small part of what I have been talking about for a long time. What section 45(4) does is it allows the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to refund overpaid tax, which is all very well, but after the normal 4-year period. So how tax works at this point in time is if a taxpayer is owed money by the IRD, then they have a 4-year window in which they are allowed to apply for that tax refund. After that 4-year window it drops off, so they can no longer claim it, until this bill.

What this bill actually allows companies to do, or allows the commissioner to do but also allows companies to do, is actually make a claim where an application has been received in the second 4-year period—so between 4 and 8 years—and the overpayment is due to a clear mistake or a simple oversight, and give the money back.

Hon Ruth Dyson: By either party.

STUART NASH: Well, by either party, but I am assuming that the IRD probably—and I should give the IRD credit. I am assuming the IRD probably is not going to go to a company after 4 years and say “Sorry, we owe you quite a lot of money in GST.”, keeping in mind that this is only for GST. I would actually like to see this extended beyond GST and to include income tax and, in fact, all types of taxes. I suspect, and I am hoping, that when the Business Transformation IT project comes into play, this sort of legislation we are talking about in clause 321 will actually be null and void because the system, as it is being built, will be able to calculate this.

But the interesting thing is it says that the proposed method also contains a traditional provision that ensures that the commissioner may repay an amount in respect of existing claims, regardless of when this bill is introduced. The thing that concerns me a little bit about this is the word “may”. What that word “may” does versus, say, for example, “must”, is it means there is discretion on behalf of the commissioner and, in this case, she might not actually decide to pay that. I cannot for the life of me comprehend of a situation where, as the bill says, if there is a clear mistake or a simple oversight and that is acknowledged by both parties, the commissioner would not pay this, but I am just not too sure why it is that there is discretion on behalf of the commissioner to determine whether this is paid or not.

There are other words in this section that cause slight concern. For example, under the provision, the commissioner could provide a refund when the application is received, but it is not “must” provide a refund if an application is received. So what the IRD has done with this, I think, is leave a little bit of wiggle room, which I think perhaps skews this clause more towards the favour of the IRD as opposed to the taxpayer.

I am not suggesting that the IRD is going to abuse this in any way, shape, or form, because it has been my experience in dealing with officials all through this legislation, and all the other bills that have come before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that the IRD actually acts in a very fair way. That old line “Trust me, I’m from the IRD.” is actually unfair to the IRD. But where it leaves discretion on behalf of the commissioner where there has been an agreed mistake or error on behalf of either party, I think that the legislation should probably compel the commissioner to pay back money. Keeping in mind we are, with this clause, overriding a long-established convention that there is a 4-year period within which taxpayers can claim back refunds, I just think that it should be a little bit tighter in that.

In this Part 3 there is actually quite a bit on GST and the changes that the bill makes, because there are some errors. You know, when you get a tax system like GST, there are always some areas that need updating every now and again. There is actually a section 46, though—we are talking about the Tax Administration Act here—where the commissioner does have the right to withhold payments. Again, it does not really make it particularly clear what those rights are, and it should perhaps be just a little bit clearer. I know that there could be any number of circumstances that the commissioner may determine that this just is not right or it does not smell particularly good, but it would be good if it was just a little clearer in that area.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to talk about in Part 3—for example, clause 319. There is a new section inserted, and it is about the consequence of change in a contract for second-hand goods. This is actually quite relevant because we are finding more and more Kiwis are actually sourcing their goods from TradeMe—so, second-hand goods—and what are the consequences of the change in the contract for second-hand goods? For example, in new section 25AB—again, we are talking about the Tax Administration Act here, keeping in mind that Part 3 of this bill as, to be honest, in most bills, is sort of an amendment to other enactments. In these sorts of bills there are always amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1994. The Tax Administration Act actually sets out the rules under which the IRD runs the whole tax system. But in new section 25AB, this section is going to apply “to a supply of secondhand goods to a registered person if—(a) the supply is affected by an event referred to in section 25(1)(a) to (c); [or if] the registered person returns input tax on the supply as a deduction from the amount of output tax for a taxable period [or] the supplier does not provide a tax invoice or debit note …” to the supplier.

The thing about this is it can be quite complicated, and I suppose by its very nature, tax legislation has to be. But I suppose the other thing that concerns me a little bit is when it gets too complicated, then what will happen is that people who should be aware of this sort of legislation actually just have no idea about it. So they do not use it and, in fact, they fall by the wayside. I am not suggesting that this is relevant throughout this legislation at all, but we just need to be slightly aware that this can happen.

There are also amendments to Stamp Duty and Tax—sorry—amendments to Stamp and Cheque Duties Act 1971. So, a bit of a mouthful.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Can you say that again?

STUART NASH: Yes, sorry. Let me start that again—thank you. We are talking about clause 328. This is amendments to the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act 1971. It is an interesting one, because I did not actually know we had stamp duty in this country. As for cheque duties, in the days when we all wrote cheques, we all knew there was a little thing down at the bottom that said: “Cheque duty has been paid on this cheque book.”

But there is still an Act. What this talks about is the definition of a registered security. So we are just amending this Act. This talks about a registered security meaning at any time any transaction involving money lent to an approved issuer that is registered by the commissioner under section 86H, or is one class of transactions so registered, or that the transaction involves money lent to an approved issuer that is treated by the commissioner as a registered security. Who knew that the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act 1971 was still around and had quite a relevance to the application to the register of securities? There is quite a lot of new legislation in this—talking about interest payments, and a whole lot of different things.

The other thing that some might be interested in as well is amendments to the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011. What they are doing is they are talking—this Act is dealing with calculating the amount of fringe benefit tax on a facility that a person may use. Again, we are getting pretty technical here, but what I do think is important is that anyone who has a student loan—and there are a number of people out there; we know that—should be aware of this. What I am hoping, and the Minister might be able to help us with this, is that the IRD will do a little more than it normally does, because it normally puts out a tax information bulletin and they are very helpful. What it does is it puts legislation in plain English. What I think would be good is if the amendments to the student loan scheme were sent out in a way so that everyone who has a student loan is aware of the changes—whether or not they affect them. The last thing we want and the last thing that people with a student loan want is to trigger some sort of liability that they just were not aware of. We see a number of these changes in tax legislation, and it is just important to ensure that Kiwis understand their rights.

There are, of course, amendments to the Income Tax Act. This is tax legislation, and there are always small amendments to the Income Tax Act. Apart from, of course, Part 1, which was a massive amendment to the Income Tax Act because it just sets the rules. But we have debated that until we are a blue in the face. But there are a number of amendments around—if a company provides moneys to a person, if the person is related, there is an obligation to pay money, and all this sort of stuff. Again, it is quite complicated but it is important that it is acknowledged.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak on Part 3 of this bill. As I was flicking through Part 3 in my office, as I am sure many other members are doing, I did come across a clause in Part 3 that I think, for me—and I am no lawyer—I wanted to get some clarification around the language that is being used. This is clause 334AB, which amends the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011. In particular, it replaces section 207(1) with a new section 207(1). It may be justified, in this example, but I think some of the wording may set a dangerous precedent if it were to be used elsewhere.

The new section 207(1) inserted in the Student Loan Scheme Act says “No obligation as to secrecy or other restriction imposed by an enactment or otherwise on the disclosure of information prevents an authorised person from disclosing to another authorised person any information …” around a student loan or any unpaid amounts. If authorised people who are trying to deal with an unpaid amount of a student loan need to talk to each other, that is a fine thing. But what I think might set a dangerous precedent if this language ended up in another piece of legislation—and I want to repeat this, because we are saying that no obligation as to secrecy or other restriction imposed by an enactment or otherwise can prevent something from happening.

I do not know whether this sequence of words is taken from some other piece of legislation, but I would think that if we are setting a precedent here where we say that it is fine if there are other enactments that exist that are meant to keep information secret but do not need to be enacted here or do not need to be followed, it is a dangerous precedent to set. When we are talking about student loans, and information needs to be swapped, I do not think that is too much to ask. It may be justified. But if we took this as a precedent to another level, where the information is sensitive, and we are saying “Well, don’t worry about the secrecy or the enactments that are upon you at that time, because we’re allowing you to share the information.”, there might be an issue with how that might be interpreted if an issue did arise, with some sensitive information being swapped between one agency or one person and another.

So the question that I would like to pose to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, I guess, first and foremost, is whether this is a normal thing to be put in legislation, especially when we are talking about there being “No obligation as to secrecy or other restriction imposed by an enactment …”. So these are laws that we pass in this House, to be obeyed. In the wording here, it is basically saying that despite what the law says, it does not matter. That is how I read it.

As I say, it might be justified at a low level transfer of information, but when you are getting into some serious information that might be being transferred from one person to another in a Government agency—if we are setting a precedent here, where we are saying that it does not matter about what restrictions you may have on that information, it does not matter what legislation may pertain to you, and the restrictions on that information that you are sharing, because we have got a set of words here that says it does not matter.

I think that is potentially a dangerous thing to do. It might be a low level thing that we are doing here, as I say, and as I have said already in my 4 minutes and 10 seconds, it may be justified. But I think we need to make sure that we are not setting a dangerous precedent, because the laws that we pass in this House should be obeyed, and not just thrown away with a piece of wording that could be used in other legislation, for other purposes. If the Minister in the chair could clarify that, it would be quite useful.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you for the opportunity to assist Mr Faafoi with his issue, where he has asked whether or not the provisions of clause 334AB might set some sort of a precedent for other information that the IRD or other agencies might have. Well, it does not, because the provisions specifically deal with student loans and the declarations made, and it is for the purpose of verifying any declaration made by an applicant for a student loan. So it is very specific. It is not a general go-to provision, should anyone want to find out any information about anyone else. It is very specific.

The other thing is it relates to information from one authorised person to another authorised person, so it is very, very specific. There is no precedent value at all, so that is not a precedent.

I think most New Zealanders would think that when people are applying for student loans—actually, a lot of it is done on trust. We trust that people are providing the right information. But where there is an opportunity to clarify something, I think it is something that agencies like the IRD are expected to do. This is taxpayer money that it is providing to students, or to people wishing to get student loans, and I think it is absolutely beholden on those people to verify, if there are any concerns, the veracity of an application or a declaration.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill, which deals with a number of remedial matters.

I want to refer to clauses 306 and 309 of the bill, which deal with prize money for the racing industry and how that is dealt with in taxation terms. People might be interested to know that for some time now the regime of GST has operated in a way where, if you are fortunate enough to be one of those lucky people who takes their horse to the races and the horse wins or gets some prize money—and normally that is up to fourth or fifth place in New Zealand racing—the prize money is deemed to be a supply of goods. It is a payment to the owner or owners of the horse for supplying the horse in the race, which of course becomes the business of the racing club. The racing club is actually making money off the fact that the horse is racing, and, therefore, that is how it is treated in terms of GST.

It appears that what this change does in this legislation is actually include greyhounds, as well, and I think that is right and proper, because it is part of the racing industry, after all. Initially, the clauses just referred to horses, and I see that now greyhounds are included as well, so that is good to see. My question is around what happens if there is prize money for a dog through a dog show. How is that to be treated under this legislation? Is it treated the same way if the dog competition—the dog show, for example—offers prize money to the winning dog? Is that something that is dealt with under this legislation or not? It seems that it might be, depending on whether it is a taxable activity.

Certainly, what I know of the racing industry is that for some people it is their income, and so it is a taxable activity, but for quite a few of us this is our entertainment value. We never really expect to actually make an income or a living out of it, but we have a great time dreaming about the money that our horse will win. I have a dream at the moment that a horse I have a tiny, tiny percentage share in is going to win the Derby next year. So there is my tip; I will give it to you right now. He has not got a name yet, so I cannot even tell you the name, so you will never know whether I am right or not about this, but this is part of the excitement of the whole industry. People do have these dreams, and you never know whether they are going to be realised or not.

The income coming from that and how it is treated tax-wise can be somewhat of an unknown entity, but I think, from what I read of these parts of the bill, it does actually matter whether the racehorse owner who received the money is involved in this activity as a taxable activity, where they derive an income, or whether it is, as I said, for many of us hobbyists, something that we do although we never really expect to make an income out of it. We expect to pay for our horse to be trained, to have the great thrill, we hope, of watching our horse step out on race day and watching it go around; and maybe—maybe—to have it pick up a prize. If it does, I can tell people from personal experience, there is just about nothing more exciting.

So it is going to be extended to greyhounds as well. I have also had the thrill of owning a tiny part of a racing greyhound. That can be just as thrilling, and also, obviously, should be treated in the same way. I have just a few questions, if Minister Collins would care to clarify the circumstances under which these amendments would apply, particularly around whether we are going to name particular breeds of dog. I see that when we talk about horses we just talk about horses—we do not say thoroughbreds; we do not say standardbreds; we just say horses—but when it comes to dogs, apparently it is just greyhounds.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Just a quick word to clarify—I do not think it applies to dog shows, because I do not think that anyone is expecting to get anything other than a ribbon, actually. But I must say I really enjoyed the member Sue Moroney’s contribution, and I am looking forward to—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You need to get out more. They do have prize money.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, look, as the owner of an almost-14-year-old Jack Russell terrier, I think we are past our prime when it comes to dog shows, but thank you for that opportunity.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): How old is 14 dog years in human years, Minister Collins?

Hon Judith Collins: It’s about 90.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yeah, OK. Well, I am not going to make any negative comments about 90-year-old dogs. Can I first of all say what a breath of fresh air it is to have a Minister who is actually engaging in our questions and not disregarding them all, and who not only responds to them but knows what she is talking about. It is a blissful relief, after over 8 years of not having that, so thank you for that, Minister. I am not sure that you have always done it, to be fair, in all your other portfolios, but, you know, break the rules—that is good.

I was really interested in the comment Minister Collins made earlier about tax legislation often coming as a result of substantial—white paper, green paper—consultation, getting a lot of understanding and support. It further cemented the concerns I had, which, with respect, were not adequately addressed in terms of why some of the major players did not have their well-considered, thoughtful submissions agreed with. We may not get to that point tonight, but I would really like to understand better why you have such disagreement between a bunch of the key players—the chartered accountants, the Law Society, etc.—and the IRD, or, in fact, the Minister, because the Minister does the final sign-off on the policy. It was the same with the amendment, which we did not support, of Ron Mark. It was the same theory. I am not going to talk about the details of that, but, again, X is saying this, and Y is saying that, and I do not understand. It was hard to judge who was right and who was wrong. Even if I had been on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I think that would have been quite difficult.

I want to just get to the next question, though, which is in relation to Part 3. I have got two questions here. I am really supportive of the idea that we are allowing a longer period of time for reconsideration of tax issues, but I think it has got potential downsides, and I want to know whether the Minister has thought of them. Where somebody has made a genuine mistake in their GST return—and I guess, obviously, they would either owe money or be owed money—it can now go out to 8 years instead of just 4 years. During a period of 8 years I think individuals’ circumstances can change substantially. What discretion is there going to be for the remission of debt?

We are starting on the basis of this being an accident. It was a miscalculation, there was an error in the return—no consideration of somebody deliberately not paying their due tax. This is a genuine error, either on behalf of IRD or on behalf of the punter. They are now able to go out for 8 years, as this provision in Part 3 proposes, but in that time their circumstances have changed dramatically—they have been ill; they have lost their job; they have lost their home, whatever; marriage break-up—there will be a variety of circumstances under which the person’s finances are considerably different. It seems to me that we have heard in the past that IRD’s discretion is quite limited in terms of remitting debt, and I would be really interested to know, alongside the extension of the time allowed—which, as I say, has got some good and bad features—what discretion is going to be given to IRD to say: “Well, your circumstances have changed. It was a genuine error that caused this underpayment of GST in the first place. We’ll remit it. We won’t require it to be paid.” That is the first part of my question.

The second part—I think one of my colleagues referred to it in a bit of a humorous way. Stuart Nash said he could not really imagine IRD ringing people up and saying “Guess what? We owe you a lot of money.”, but I have confidence that the system works both ways, that IRD does not just ring people and say “You owe us money.” but would also do the same if it was reviewing a client’s returns and found that, actually, IRD owed them money that it had not paid. I would just like you to reinforce my confidence, Minister, and say that that is correct.

I do not understand either, though, why this is only about GST. Why is this not about other forms of income? There are confusing lengths of requirement as to when people have to keep their returns. This now brings in another one. So it is going to be 8 years for GST. Does that mean people have to keep all their tax returns for 8 years? Currently, most people, I think, do that for 7 years. If that is the situation for GST, what about the next step? What about for other sorts of taxes? Is this a trial, or is this as far as the Minister wants to go in this regard? [Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The Hon Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will probably take just a brief call, because I did want to ask about the provisions outlined in clause 328. It came as a great surprise to me that we still had stamp and cheque duties relating to the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act of 1971. I often say in jest to people that I will pay them by cheque, just to see what their reaction is. Do they have any recollection—if I said “Iain Lees-Galloway, I will pay you by cheque.”, he would look totally blank. He is of an age where he actually does not know what a cheque book is. He may remember parents or grandparents paying by cheque.

On a serious note, though, I know that stamp duties apply to other things. If we are going to retain this regime of stamp and cheque duties, what is it worth to the Crown now? What is the cost of administration of the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act of 1971 compared with the income gained, and how much of that income is retained by the Crown as opposed to how much is then dispersed to other parties? I am pretty sure that stamp and cheque duties are not a direct taxation to the Crown, but that might be wrong.

This is a huge amount of alteration; the whole of section 86G of the Act has been taken out—in fact, more than that. Section 86GB, right through, has been taken out and replaced. So it seemed like quite a lot of work, timewise, but I am not so much interested in that, because we do have a responsibility as a Parliament to keep our laws up to date. It is more of just a—of interest and maybe for future review by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What is this worth? What is the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act of 1971 worth? How much do we gain and how much of it is retained by the Crown, and what is the estimate of its administration costs? Thank you for the opportunity to make those points.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): This is just a brief call, but it is something that, actually, when I was looking at it, I was not too sure of the meaning. First of all, I do like Ruth Dyson’s comments about when the IRD is reviewing a client’s returns. I think you meant auditing their accounts? Going really—

Hon Ruth Dyson: No, they have a review first.

STUART NASH: Yes, you are dead right, and I would love to see the day when the IRD phones up and says: “Dear sir, we do actually owe you money.” That will be a—hell might freeze over.

I would like to talk about clause 340, and this is inserting a new section, section CX 17B, “Transport in vehicle other than motor vehicle”, into the Income Tax Act 2004. This is about fringe benefit. The title of the section is “Transport in vehicle other than motor vehicle”. This is interesting. The reason I say that—I am going to quote this, because it is just a very small line. It says: “A benefit that an employer provides to an employee in the form of transport of the employee in a vehicle is not a fringe benefit if the vehicle—(a) is not a motor vehicle; and (b) is not designed principally for the carriage of passengers.”

The reason this is interesting is that I am actually unsure what the definition of “vehicle” is in the Act. I have had a look in the bill and there is no definition in here. The reason I say that is that maybe this is talking about electric bikes, because electric bikes are obviously becoming the big thing these days. I cannot actually see an employer providing an employee with an electric bike, but you never know. But the reason why this has caused me a little confusion is you talk to a lot of people, and the first thing they say about an electric car is: “The great thing about it is that it does not have a motor. It has a battery.”

In fact, if you look at the Teslas, you can open up the bonnet, where a motor would be in a normal car, and you can open up the boot, where the motor would be in a V-Dub, and there is no motor in either, so you get quite a lot of space there. So if a company provided, say, for example, a new Tesla without a motor—one of these sports Teslas—and with a back seat where you can barely fit a set of golf clubs, does that mean that it does not incur fringe benefit? You could never say a sports Tesla was designed principally for the carriage of passengers, and this is the other thing here. What the legislation actually says is “not designed principally for the carriage of passengers.”

I, for example, drive a ute. It is my parliamentary car; it is all branded up. A lot of tradies drive utes, and it is principally for getting their gear from site to workshop, etc. You would never argue that they have bought a ute principally for the carriage of passengers. I just wonder whether this is, in fact, tidying that up because the tradies have said: “Hey, look, I’ve got to provide a ute to my apprentice. I know he’s not going to use it for the carriage of passengers because I have given him so many tools that this is principally for providing a means to transport gear to and from the yard or to and from the site.”

The other thing is, again, the definition of “vehicle”. Are we talking about a bike, or is it something—the bill talks about a “vehicle [that] is not a motor vehicle;”, so obviously there is a recognition that a vehicle does not have to have a motor. I am wondering whether maybe this is one of those pieces of legislation that the Minister of Transport talks about where the Government is encouraging the use of electric vehicles. The Minister of Transport has always said “We will put into legislation clauses that encourage people to use electric vehicles. It’s an aspirational target.”, so I am wondering whether, in fact, an electric vehicle is not a motor vehicle, and, therefore, if an employer provides a sports Tesla to an employee, it is not counted as a motor vehicle. It is not principally designed for carrying passengers and, therefore—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Electric motor?

STUART NASH: Well, is it, though? But—

Brett Hudson: It’s a five-seater, Stuart.

STUART NASH: No, the sports Teslas are not. The sports Teslas have two seats, and then a little seat at the back where you can stick your golf clubs. You cannot fit anyone in there. But you do not buy one of these cars principally—and the word is “principally”—for the carriage of passengers. You buy these for a whole lot of other reasons, but not to carry people.

So has it got an electric motor? Well, that is the interesting thing: what is the definition of “motor”? You know, when you talk to people about this, they say: “The thing I love about the Tesla is it hasn’t got an engine.” It has not got an engine. It has got a big battery and a couple of other bits and pieces that drive the wheels.

Brett Hudson: Motors—electric motors.

STUART NASH: Well, is that called a motor? I am not too sure. I think you could find that maybe Elon Musk will bring his legal counsel over and say: “This isn’t a motor.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Five seconds.

STUART NASH: So what I would like to say is there are a number of definitions here that are not quite clear, and it would be—

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins, and the following amendments in her name, to Part 3 be agreed to:

in clauses 274C and 274D, replace “Parts 1 to 8 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Act 2016” with “the Social Security Act 1964”; and

delete clause 335C(3).

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): As we know, we are debating tax legislation here, and I think it is common practice—and the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, will know this because she was a practising tax lawyer—that there has to be a very good reason to implement tax legislation retrospectively. If I have a look at this, there is one clause in here, clause 306(2), that comes into force—wait for it—on 1 October 1986. That is astounding.

Kris Faafoi: What were you doing in ’86?

STUART NASH: Well, I was not born—well, OK, I was. OK, I might have been at university. “For an asset affected by [subsection (3) or (3B)], if a transfer of ownership of the asset would be a financial service, the subsection deems the person to make a supply of the asset by a transfer of ownership.” I am wondering why we are debating something in 2017 that actually relates to something in 1986. So the two questions I have around that are: first of all, if it really is important, why was this not done any time between the Lange, the Bolger, the Shipley, the Clark, the Key—there was all this opportunity to do it. Why was it not done beforehand?

The second question is: if it has actually sat on the books as something different for 30 years, what impact is it going to have? Is this sort of an academic exercise where a very smart boffin at the IRD has said: “Ah, look, I’ve found something in the tax Act. I can get this changed.” I mean, is there a competition in the IRD that whoever can amend the piece of legislation that goes back furthest wins a prize? Whoever has done that has done a fantastic job. The year 1986 was a long, long time ago. I do not even think Peter Dunne was in the House then. Maybe he was.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes, he was.

STUART NASH: Oh, that is right. But there are a number of clauses in this bill that are retrospective. Often, of course, there are good reasons for retrospective legislation, and most of them are about closing down loopholes. The concern I always have about retrospective tax legislation is that often people have made decisions based on the law that they have before them, and they often say: “If I had known that the Government was going to change the law, then I would not have made that decision.”

I am not saying that relates to the 1986 legislation, but if you have a look at pages 16 and 17 there are a whole lot of sections here that come into force in 2006—you know, 10 years ago, 11 years ago, 12 years ago; all through 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. And some actually come into play on 1 April 2017. Well! And the interesting stuff about 1 April 2017 is that obviously that is not the day it receives the Royal assent; it is the first day of the financial tax year. I understand that—I get that—but I suppose the concern that I do have is there is so much retrospectivity here. It would be good to know—and I have no doubt the Minister knows this. I mean, I do not even know whether the Minister was practising in 1986, but there is a whole lot of stuff here—

Hon Judith Collins: 1981, thank you.

STUART NASH: In 1981? Well, in fact this might be a case where the Minister looked through the legislation and said “Ah, that was a loophole when I was practising. I’ve always wanted the opportunity to close that down.” But it would be good to know whether in fact a lot of this retrospective legislation is actually about closing down loopholes that have been exploited by tax lawyers and tax accountants, or whether in fact what they are is the IRD, as it often does—I do not mean to disparage the IRD; I think it does an absolutely fantastic job, and I have only ever had wonderful experiences of them in front of the Finance and Expenditure. I ask whether this is just part of the continuous review that it does of tax legislation, where it finds something where the wording has changed due to the implementation or the ascension of another bill into law, and that means that another piece of legislation has to be changed, and it is not about closing down loopholes; it is actually just about maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the tax system, which we know is fundamental to tax law.

So if there are loopholes, that is fantastic. I doubt the Minister can answer this, but is it in fact about “OK, when we close this down, we’re going to save the taxpayer $25 million.”? Or is it again just about maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the system? If that is the case, then that is fantastic. But, again, I just reiterate the point that there are some pieces of retrospective legislation that do go back a long way. We will all admit that retrospective tax legislation is not an ideal way to make law. Thank you very much.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 13

Green Party 13.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Ron Mark’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 is out of order as being contingent on an amendment already negatived.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Fire and Emergency New Zealand

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Just some overview, first of all. I want to acknowledge the more than 110 submitters on this bill. I thought that our Government Administration Committee worked very well to address all of the issues. I will go straight to a tabled amendment that I have put forward for the Committee to consider. A number of submitters talked about the importance of service. In this House in the last few days there have been a number of members who have acknowledged the difficulties that people are going through right now with flooding and other issues, and it happened today in the House as well.

I just want to highlight that a key part of that acknowledgment was acknowledging the service that had been given by the Fire Service and others. I think the word “service” is a key one. In the dictionary, when I looked it up, service actually means “a system supplying public need” and service can also mean “helping or doing work”. For this reason I have put forward an amendment, which has been tabled, to add the word “Services” to the name of both this bill and Fire and Emergency New Zealand, as it is called under this bill, so that it will now be called Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand.

That is more specifically in acknowledgment of all of those wonderful people who provide that service and take pride in providing that service. It is seen as a badge of honour that they are part of what is now the Fire Service, and other services. So establishing the new entity under this bill, although it is really important, I think it is really important that we acknowledge all of the thousands of men and woman who provide the services. That is the reason why I have put forward this particular amendment. Of course, along with that, it makes a number of other changes as well throughout the bill. It is not an easy thing to change the name, but I have put this forward because I want to acknowledge all of those people who have made submissions. I believe it is important that they have their voice heard in this House, in this debate.

In the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 262, and I want to go through quite a number of the amendments—can I, first of all, say that I acknowledge that we went through what I thought was a really good process in the select committee. We debated those issues robustly. There are a number of changes that have been made since the select committee hearing that have not been considered by the select committee, and I just want to highlight that as well.

Also in my tabled amendment—after receiving correspondence on this matter, and I am sure I will want to speak more extensively about this—is “to establish an independent complaints authority”. The reason behind that, again, is an acknowledgment of all of those who are providing those services, all of those people involved in this service who have asked that there be some independence, hence the reason for calling for the establishment of an independent complaints authority, so that there are much more transparent processes when dealing with complaints. That is the reason why I have asked for this particular clause to be considered by the Committee.

Also, within Part 1 of the bill, I want to talk about the changes to the clauses that relate to evacuation schemes. This brings to mind one of the key points of discussion for submitters, which was around the local committees and the planning processes that were included within Part 1 of this bill. I want to again acknowledge those people for bringing their thoughts and ideas around that. They had great concerns around how that would work and what the composition of that would be, and it is really good to see that the Minister, under these amended clauses, seems to have heard the voices of those people and has changed those clauses accordingly. So I acknowledge that.

Also, I do highlight that in Subpart 3, clause 8(1), which states: “There continues to be an organisation …”—that is not it. Sorry, Mr Chair. The same conditions that applied beforehand, under that clause, will continue to apply now. I look forward to making other contributions. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the call—[Interruption] Thank you, Mr Lees-Galloway, you will get your turn in a moment. A very warm welcome to you all this evening. It is great to see the Minister in the chair, Mark Mitchell—I will throw a few questions your way a little bit later on; I would like to hear some of your responses. The bill we have got here is the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I will be specifically talking to clauses 3 and 4—the “Purpose”—and then following with the “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”.

I think the opening statement really needs to be made with regards to this being the 17th review in 21 years, and yet, despite that very comprehensive—so-called comprehensive—review that has taken place, just last week we have had the Minister come out and say: “Well, maybe we should have actually included civil defence in this review, and we should include it, and, you know what, while we’re at it why don’t we shoot from the hip and let’s also include St John Ambulance.” Of course, it is all a little bit too late, and if after 21 years this is the best we can do then I think we need to scrap it and start again, because this really is quite a shemozzle when we look at it and we break it down.

With regard to the review, my question to the Minister is: was much done in relation to looking at other international studies that have been affected with amalgamation and the problems that they are having with the amalgamation? Of course, when you are looking at the size of the operation of the Fire Service throughout rural provincial areas, including all of our volunteers, and the fact that 83 percent of our operation is made up of volunteers, what sort of impact is that going to have, specifically, on our rural and our volunteer sector? All of the information that we have got from the Ferguson report and the Malone report, the review of causes and contributing factors of forest fires in Europe reports, and what is going on in California suggests that this is going to cause major problems within the organisation and its structure. So that is one point that needs to be looked at with the transition, and of course the burden of cost.

But when we look at the review and the contributions that have been put forward, the idea that we are going to be taking a levy on insurance to cover the cost of running our Fire Service really does not quite cut it. We really think that the Government needs to look at a better funding model than what has been proposed; specifically, around the fact that 7c out of every $100 spent on commercial properties is uncapped, and over 40 percent of the entire funding of Fire and Emergency New Zealand will come from that commercial sector, which is completely out of whack with all other sectors that are going to be contributing through their insurances.

We have got a member’s bill that is going to be addressing a very, very small part of it, in relation to insurance that is going to be affected by this levy. An example of that is if you get travel insurance, a very, very small component of your travel insurance looks after your luggage and your belongings, and, of course, that is captured under the insurance levy aspect—except for the fact that we have the very, very improbable possibility of there being an issue with a person who has got travel insurance who is going to require the assistance of the Fire Service, yet they are expecting to be paid for that. So there are a number of things that need to be factored into this.

We believe that the funding model and the levy should be scrapped, and that we should be funding the Fire Service out of the general tax pool because, of course, the other part of this bill is somehow turning the Fire Service into a collection agency. It is required to have a department set up specifically to go and collect money from those people who refuse to pay. The simple fact is that in a commercial reality, if you have got people who refuse to pay their levy, and it is left to the Fire Service to go and collect that money, then the reality is that if they do not pay it, what is the Fire Service left to do? I mean, it is an integral part of our emergency service providing systems, and now, all of a sudden, it is going to be spending time, effort, energy, and money in setting up procedures—something that the Inland Revenue Department is specifically designed to look after—to go out there and gather revenue for themselves. The last thing we want to see is the Fire Service making decisions because someone has not paid their Fire Service levy and, therefore, it says: “Well, we’re not going to go and attend that fire because they haven’t actually paid their subs.”

To finish—I will be taking a few calls tonight—if 40 percent of your funding is actually received through your commercial property levy, then surely that funding is going to be more concentrated into the cities to ensure that they get the funding as opposed to the rural fire services, which will be marginalised.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I go directly to clause 33 in Part 1, which is titled “Duty of FENZ in relation to volunteers”. I think most people who might be watching or listening tonight might not quite understand the intricacies of how the new entity was structured in the past, but I think they would recognise that the New Zealand Fire Service, as we have known it, is made up of professional firefighters and volunteers.

I think that in order to maintain the optimal level of volunteers in our volunteer fire brigades, there are some duties that the legislation says the new entity has to adhere to. But there is, I guess, to use a word from a famous movie, a “vibe” about clause 33, and that is that volunteer firefighters are doing the job of volunteering in their fire services because of a love for it, because of the good for the community, or because they might enjoy the experience of being part of a volunteer fire brigade. Because of that, there is a duty within clause 33 for Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) to, essentially, in plain English, look after them. Subclause (1)(a) of clause 33 says that “FENZ must take reasonable steps—(a) to recognise, respect, and promote the contribution of FENZ volunteers”. Subclause (1)(c) goes on to say that FENZ must also “develop policy and organisational arrangements that encourage, maintain, and strengthen the capability of FENZ volunteers.”

This is not an issue to be taken lightly, because in the departmental report for this piece of legislation, the officials—and I acknowledge them in the House today—did say that of all the Fire Service brigades around the country, nearly one in five brigades is operating with fewer than 80 percent of their target numbers of volunteers. So, in essence, we are saying that it is hard to make sure we have got the optimal number of volunteers, so getting people on board and keeping them is a real issue for the Fire Service.

I do not want to go too much into an Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I have got in respect of Part 2, but I guess what I am saying is that if you have got people within the volunteer fire service, FENZ has to make sure that it works hard to keep them in there and keep them motivated to want to continue to volunteer. There are some things, though, that get in the way. If you make the experience of volunteering for a fire service cumbersome, if you make it administration heavy, then I think you take the risk—and the officials have pointed this out—that you will not have the ability to attract new people to volunteer for the Fire Service. This comes to the duty that FENZ does have—I think subclause (1)(c) did point to that—“to develop policy and organisational arrangements that encourage, maintain, and strengthen the capability of FENZ volunteers.”

I do have an SOP in respect of Part 2 that goes to the issue of traffic management plans for some of the basic work that our volunteer fire brigades do. They are mandated by law to check fire hydrants in their communities. They have no choice; it is their job, it is their responsibility, to go out and maintain those hydrants. If it is cumbersome, and if there is no looking to the future to be able to maintain firefighters and attract volunteer firefighters, I do not think that FENZ is doing a good enough job in respect of clause 33(1)(c) to develop policy and organisational arrangements to encourage, maintain, and strengthen the capability of FENZ volunteers.

I guess the nightmare scenario there is that if we do make things more difficult, if we do burden our volunteer firefighters right around the country with unnecessary red tape—I hazard a guess that most members of this House have to manage their own group of volunteers—and if we put things in their way that take their heart and their passion away from what they are doing, they simply will not do it anymore. They will stop being volunteers in the community, because they will say: “The burden of that task and that administration outweighs the pleasure that I have to volunteer my time to do work for the community.”

I will speak in more detail when we come to Part 2, but I think we must be very careful not to put impediments in the way of volunteers, and we must do all we can under clause 33(1)(c) to make sure that we are clearing the way to make sure people who volunteer are doing what they came to volunteer for, and that is go out there, help the community, make sure that they are preventing the kinds of things that we do not want to happen, like fires, and not sitting around tables doing administration work that is unnecessary, because then we will have people saying “That’s enough for me”, and as a whole the community will suffer.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): There are a few clauses in Part 1 that I would like to speak to, but I would like to begin by speaking in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, particularly with reference to the change he proposes to the name of the organisation Fire and Emergency New Zealand—to add the word “Services”, so the name would be Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand. To people who have just tuned in, that might seem like a minor change. People might question why a member would put up an amendment to the name of the organisation. They might question what difference that could possibly make. But, actually, to the personnel themselves, and to those personnel who submitted during the select committee phase of this bill, this is an incredibly important aspect.

We all recognise the service of fire and emergency personnel—the fact that they perform an important service, and that they serve our communities. In fact, one need look no further than clause 3, the purpose clause of this legislation, which says: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) reform the law relating to fire services, including by strengthening the role of communities and improving the support for volunteers in the provision of fire services, and, to that end,—(i) to unify Fire Services by establishing Fire and Emergency New Zealand…”. We are unifying our Fire Services, strengthening the role of communities, and improving the support for volunteers in the provision of fire services, yet that word “services” has fallen out of the name.

If members are unsure about how important this is to the service personnel themselves, the Professional Firefighters Union described the name as objectionable and contemptuous of the history of the many years of service provided by the women and men who have dedicated their time to the service of our communities. Surely, if this Parliament recognises the important service of those firefighters and other emergency services personnel, and if we want to strengthen the role of communities and improve the support for volunteers and, in fact, improve the support for the professionals in our fire and emergency service, surely we could do the simple thing of acknowledging the service that they have provided and acknowledging the depth of feeling from them around the name of the organisation.

We all think of the fire “services”. We all think of the emergency “services”. I do not think it is that onerous a change for us to make as a Parliament, to simply add that word to the name of the organisation to recognise the people who actually work at the front lines providing those services. I would appreciate some comment from the Minister on that. It may seem trivial, but it is very important to the people who work at the front line for us, serving our communities. I would like to know from the Minister why the change has not been made.

We have a significant ministerial SOP that makes multiple changes to the legislation. Why is the change proposed by my colleague Adrian Rurawhe not in the Minister’s SOP? Given that it is not in the Minister’s SOP, is the Minister of a mind to support Adrian Rurawhe’s proposal; if not, why not? It is not that onerous, it is not that difficult, and if it is not the course of action that the Government wants to take then I think members on this side—and, in particular, the service personnel who are actually working for us at the front line, often putting life and limb on the line to keep our communities safe and to aid and assist people when they are in an emergency situation—would appreciate the explanation from the Government as well as to why it cannot do that one simple thing.

The other section of Part 1 that I would like to speak to is clause 28 through to clause 32. Clauses 28 to 32 deal with the prescribed health standards for operational personnel. I think all members of the House and all submitters recognise the importance of having health standards for our operational personnel who serve in our fire and emergency services, because they are doing physically demanding work, and to be safe themselves and for their colleagues to be safe and to ensure that members of the public to whose assistance they are coming are as safe as possible, we do need there to be health standards for the operational personnel.

However, I think that we also need to acknowledge that this legislation does allow for operational personnel to be dismissed should they not meet those health standards. This legislation is actually quite prescriptive. Initially, when I saw this—being someone who has an interest in employment relations and workers’ rights—I was interested to see how this legislation would interact with the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act and other employment legislation.

I was concerned, at first, that it may in some way undermine that legislation. However, I have to say that, because it is somewhat prescriptive, this legislation actually provides a fair amount of protection for those operational personnel—acknowledging that there needs to be a standard of health and a standard of fitness that personnel need to meet. It is not prescribed in the legislation; it is over to the board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) to set those standards. But, actually, there are procedures. First of all, those standards have to be communicated. The Law Society actually recommended that the standards ought to be publicly available on the FENZ website. I think that would be a minimum. They would need to be well communicated to the operational personnel themselves, as would the steps that must be taken in order to demonstrate that an operational service person no longer meets those standards, the opportunity to appeal, and the opportunity for redeployment to non-operational tasks so that their experience and their knowledge can be retained in the organisation. I actually think that this legislation is quite admirable on that front.

From the point of view of looking at how we might support staff throughout workplaces around New Zealand who, through accident or injury or through poor health, become unable to fulfil the duties that are ordinarily expected of them—I actually think that this legislation could be model legislation for how our employment relations legislation might deal with that situation. Although there are certain prescribed health requirements for operational personnel in this case, there are a lot of examples where people, through injury or illness, become incapacitated and unable to perform the duties that are ordinarily required of them.

This legislation is actually—at first blush, I was concerned that it would undermine the Employment Relations Act; I actually think we could use this to enhance the Employment Relations Act. I must say, I acknowledge the work of everybody involved: the unions, the Government Administration Committee, and the Minister, in crafting legislation that so appropriately upholds and supports the rights of our service personnel. Given that we are doing that—given that we are acknowledging that they have rights in the workplace and that they have a dangerous and arduous job to do—I come back to my original point which, is to ask why we cannot give them that simple acknowledgment that what they do is provide a service to our community and that they serve our community. Can we not acknowledge that in the name of the organisation? They asked for it; it is what they want, and I think it would be a simple thing for this Parliament to do, and if the Government is not willing to do it, I think we need an explanation.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Chair, thank you for that excellent choice. My apologies to my colleague Damien O’Connor. I hope he is able to make a contribution soon. Can I just say that during the time since this bill was first introduced to the House, we have seen the Kaikōura quakes; we have seen the Wellington quakes, and then the Wellington floods. We have seen the fires in Christchurch and then the fires in Hanmer. I do wish they would stop doing those natural events just after we have—it is pretty horrific. And, of course, in the last week or so we have seen the floods in Coromandel and then, more recently, in West Auckland, and they are not the only horrific natural events; they are just the biggest ones that have captured the media attention and, obviously, our attention. But every day we have events that occur in our communities where we rely on our volunteer or professional firefighters to be at the forefront of what must be pretty awful situations, often—particularly in rural or small communities.

I think that the work we do on this bill—the way we proceed through the Committee stage, where we really have to look at individual clauses and take care that we have got the detail right—will be a tribute to the work that those firefighters do around the country, and I, frankly, do not care whether they are volunteers or professional or rural or forest firefighters or whether they are employed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) or the New Zealand Fire Service or whether they are volunteers in their local community—they are all amazing people who do a huge amount of work to keep us safe and, often, at the cost of their own family and at the risk of their own well-being.

It is one of the reasons why I so strongly support the first amendment that my colleague Adrian Rurawhe has moved, and I want to acknowledge and thank him. What he did was listen to the pleas of the firefighters in our various discussions with them at the Government Administration Committee. He then listened to the advice that we got from the officials about the basis of the name of the new organisation and then he balanced that up. I think he did a very considerate job and a very good job.

I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Mark Mitchell, and say that I hope he is going to take a few calls tonight. He should be able to, because he knows a bit about this bill. Before his huge promotion to the dizzy heights of being a Minister he was a more humble member of our select committee, but he actually does know the detail of this legislation well. He may well have moved on and no longer care about these things, but I live and hope that he might make a contribution before the end of the night.

So just going back to the tabled amendment that Adrian Rurawhe has moved—let me tell the Committee the theory, as I understand it, of why the new organisation is proposed to be called Fire and Emergency New Zealand. So with the amalgamation of the various bodies that are coming into one organisation it is very clear that it is a genuine amalgamation and it is not the New Zealand Fire Service becoming the master body, with the others joining it. This is a new organisation where they are all equal players. That was my understanding of the logic of not having the word “service” in the name, because “New Zealand Fire Service” is obviously the current regime of professional firefighters and it may have been seen as being the master body and the others were being subsumed into it—that is not the intention of the bill.

I think that the officials who considered it, did so very carefully. I think they understood how big a shift that this was going to be, and I think—with the best intentions in the world—the name of the new organisation, as proposed, reflects that. What I think Adrian Rurawhe’s amendment has done is reflect the deep commitment to community that our firefighters give, regardless of which part of the organisation they are in. And they do it not for the money, not for the glory—they might like the uniform—but, actually, they do it because of their sense of service. It is a big call and we should respect them for that. That is why I support the amendment to have that word “service” recognised in the name.

I would just like to make a few brief comments on another part of the tabled amendment in Adrian Rurawhe’s name and that is the addition in clause 3—so we are still on Part 1, obviously; that is what we are debating at the moment. Some of the submitters who made representations to us talked about the fact that they felt it was quite an internal organisation.

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I appreciate the opportunity to speak positively about this bill—Labour does support it. But it has raised many issues through the process. I guess that the size of a bill is not necessarily an indication of its importance, but the size of the officials report is, because there were a large number of submissions brought to the Government Administration Committee—I was not on it—and officials have responded accordingly to a large number of points where amendments have been made. So I would like to acknowledge the select committee, I guess, for taking on board the wisdom.

Anyone who has been to a Fire Service event or, in particular, a gold service award event appreciates the passion and commitment of people up and down this country to, effectively, be the front line of emergency management in the vast majority of New Zealand. In the rural and provincial areas in particular, we do not have the benefit of paid staff and services that are fully funded. We are relying on volunteers and integration between the Police, the Fire Service, and often the ambulance. I have to say that in my experience it is often the Fire Service that turns up to an accident, particularly on a road that might be 15 or 20 kilometres out of town. Such is the level of response and preparedness of the Fire Service in rural areas.

Can I say that the kinds of things that were addressed through the submission process may seem insignificant, but to the submitters they were important. I guess it does indicate the haste with which the Government has tried to push this through. One in particular is clause 76, where clarity had to be made—a change was made to the legislation—to ensure that people could not opt out of the levy by insuring with offshore companies that did not have a base here in New Zealand. So a tweak had to be made to make sure that the intermediary in that process would be liable for the levy. It is absolutely essential that the levy that is being imposed is imposed in a fair way that maximises the return to the Fire Service and Fire and Emergency New Zealand. I could not help thinking that its expertise in crisis management, as it will be now with Fire and Emergency New Zealand, should perhaps be applied to the housing situation in New Zealand. The Government could do well to ask it for some advice.

There was another technical issue. I am not trying to be pedantic here, but such was the level of scrutiny by the select committee, where there was no clarity on levies that could be applied on a pro rata basis where contracts were not for the full-year term and how that could have been applied. That has been clarified.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Levies are in Part 3.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Sorry—yes, I know. I guess I am referring to the detail that the committee has paid attention to in the bill.

Can I say that the mandate of the Fire Service to cover both fire and non-fire services is a very important aspect of it. My experience, and that of anyone who spends some time on the road, is that the Fire Service is expected to be, I guess, emergency management at serious accidents. The police get there but the Fire Service is the one that has the expertise and the equipment to actually often extract people. So the title in the bill is appropriate, but, as was raised by submitters, the word “service” has been taken out. I know for many people—when I attend gold star events—that the service component, their commitment to that, is the underlying drive of their extraordinary commitment to the Fire Service. I hope that they see that it is a change in title; it is not a change in intent by Parliament. But it is one of those things that obviously was raised.

Can I raise one other important thing—and it is in a general sense—and that is risk management. These are people who are managing risk every single time they go to an event. We have through this Government a risk management regime, or health and safety, which some say is over the top. I just hope that we do not see the Fire Service or the Fire and Emergency New Zealand people subjected to unfair criticism through their risk management practices.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 107

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Adrian Rurawhe to clause 3 be agreed to:

in subclause (d) replace “safety” with safety; and”; and

insert the following new paragraph:

(e) to establish an independent complaints authority.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Adrian Rurawhe to clause 6 be agreed to:

replace the name and definition of “Fire and Emergency New Zealand” with “Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand or FESNZ means Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand continued under section 8”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Adrian Rurawhe’s consequential amendments to Part 1, inserting “Services” and changing the name of FENZ to FESNZ—is it, how do you pronounce it; what is the terminology?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Fire and Emergency Service New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, I know what it stands for, but how do you pronounce it? Anyway, it is out of order as contingent on the amendment already negatived.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 107

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Emergencies, fire control, industry brigades, water supply, and evacuation schemes

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a genuine pleasure to speak to Part 2 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I would like to offer, in my contribution to Part 2, a bouquet, a brickbat, and an offer of help via a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). In the first reading speech that I gave to this bill I had two bees in my bonnet, and they were bees that were put there by some local volunteer fire brigades. I would like to acknowledge the Plimmerton Volunteer Fire Brigade, and Carl Mills, who is in the gallery tonight, and also the Porirua Volunteer Fire Brigade.

The bouquet comes around clause 45 in this bill—and I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs and the officials for seeing fit to put this within the bill—and that is around the use of water for emergency and training purposes. Essentially, this issue around clause 45 came to me because Dave Anderson, who served the Plimmerton Volunteer Fire Brigade for over 35 years, found himself and that particular fire brigade in what would be called a ridiculous situation around trying to access waterways and other bodies of water in their realm for training purposes for their brigade. To give you a bread-and-butter example of that, if there was a pond or lake that they may be called to use during an emergency, they wanted to be able to train to get the water out of that pond or lake so they knew the vagaries of that particular body of water.

They found themselves again fighting against sizable red tape, even in the instance when they would be pumping the water out of the body of water—so they could test their pumps to make sure that everything worked and so that the volunteer fire brigade personnel could use the pump and knew how that worked—and pumping it straight back into the body of water. So we are talking a circle here. It is not going anywhere else. It is not being used to hose anything down. The water would be pumped, via the same piece of hose—I guess that is the technical term—straight back into the body of water. The rigmarole and the red tape that they had to go through with some of the local bodies—the local council and, I understand, the Wellington Regional Council—was very onerous and, going back to my Part 1 speech, was becoming a bit of a pain. If it was too onerous, why would people turn up to do the job?

Within the realm of clause 45(1): “FENZ personnel may, free of charge,—(a) use all hydrants and control valves installed in any water mains and any water in the water mains for—” performing their duties, and for “(ii) training for the purposes of performing or exercising FENZ’s functions, duties, or powers;”. They may also “(b) use water from any water supply or any source of water for—… (ii) training for the purposes of performing or exercising FENZ’s functions,”. In legalese that is saying that my volunteer fire brigades and other the volunteer fire brigades around the country will not have to go through the process that they have had to in the past. I know that they will be responsible. I think they will communicate with any relevant bodies, like the local councils or the regional councils in their area, if they are going to do that because they want to be responsible organisations within their communities.

I think this is a good clause within the legislation, to make sure our volunteer fire brigades can do what they are there to do, to make sure they are not held up by onerous red tape or paperwork, and to make sure that if something does go wrong and they do need to access a stream, a river, or a body of water within their catchment area, they can do that. I would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Government, and the officials for putting that in this piece of legislation.

Here comes the brickbat, and that is clause 48. The other bee in my bonnet was around traffic management plans for fire brigades. As I said in my Part 1 speech, fire brigades around the country are mandated by legislation to check every fire hydrant to make sure that they are operational and working so that in the event of something going wrong, when they rock up to a fire hydrant they know it is going to work. They do not have any option; that is their job and they must do it. I think we all rely on fire brigades to make sure that those things work. The problem is that if they do that and they are on roads and they are going to disrupt traffic, or potentially disrupt traffic, they need a traffic management plan.

In plain English: for every hydrant, for every place they check, they will have to put a plan together, map it out, work out where they are going to put the fluorescent cones and where they are going to put their personnel, when they are going to be there—all those kinds of things—to make sure they can do that job. In plain English, I think that is silly. They do not have to do that if there is an emergency, because they simply do not have time. I think that the type of person who is either a professional firefighter or a volunteer firefighter is going to be pretty safety conscious as it is. They would take steps to make sure that what they are doing is safe, and if they are going to—I guess, for want of a better term—get in the way of other people who are using roads, they will limit the time that they are going to be there and they will take steps to make sure that they do put out cones to make sure that everything is safe.

Because that bee in my bonnet was not taken up by the Government within the Government Administration Committee or at the Committee stage, I have put forward SOP 263, to Part 2, in order to do that. There have to be some guidelines. Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) will have to set out a policy in consultation with the Transport Agency and local bodies as to how things will be done, and I will leave it in their hands to put the policy in place. But I think we need to take some measures to let our volunteer fire brigades get on with their work.

I did say in Part 1 that one in five volunteer fire brigades is at only about 80 percent of their full muster of staff on their brigades. So we do have an issue of fully staffing our volunteer fire brigades. So let us just give them a hand, because I think this is the kind of thing that, kind of, gets on their nerves, especially for those who are there at the moment, who want to be able to encourage other people to join a volunteer fire brigade. Why would you do it if a lot of your time—I am not saying it is the majority of your time, but it is a hell of a lot of time—is taken up with paperwork? That is not what volunteer fire brigade volunteers sign up for. It certainly would not look good on a poster: “Join the volunteer fire brigade and sit down for hours and hours doing traffic management plans”. That is not what it should be about.

So I think the Government should consider supporting this SOP. I know it will probably vote it down. But, in the long term, it may be able to use regulatory powers to be able to put this into practice, because I think it is the right thing to do to make sure it is practical for volunteer fire brigades when they are going around and checking the fire hydrants. It is going to save them a hell of a lot of time, and I think it will solve a lot of the problems that volunteer fire brigades are having up and down the country with regard to making people enthusiastic about joining volunteer fire brigades.

This legislation has been decades in the making and, as I said to the officials and in my first reading speech, it could be a long time before another train like this goes past and we can amend the legislation. So I am taking this opportunity to say that if it is going to be another period of time before we review this legislation, let us do this now and put it in here so that there is an onus on FENZ to make sure it works towards making sure volunteer fire brigades do not have to put up with this nonsense any more.

I would like to know whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, or someone on behalf of the Government might make an argument as to why it should not do this, and if it will not support my Supplementary Order Paper 263—I do not imagine it would—to say what steps it might take in the future to make this a practical reality, without having to go through this process, because I think it would put a lot of volunteer fire brigade volunteers and chiefs at ease if they knew this particular bee in their bonnet could be dealt with. It is not just my volunteer fire brigade; it is an issue that came up many, many times, I think, for the submitters who came through the select committee.

So there is my bouquet—thank you for the water training access issue. My brickbat is around the traffic management plans, but there is hope if the Government decided to say: “Hey, give Kris Faafoi’s SOP on this issue a chance.” We will see how it goes.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to speak to clauses 35 through to 42, which deal with some of the functions, duties, and powers—particularly powers that an authorised person has in responding to an emergency. They cover what an authorised person may or must do if the alarm of a fire is reported in a hazardous substance emergency and in other emergencies; the duty of the authorised person to control and direct people, both operational service personnel and other people; the powers of the authorised person in relation to land, buildings, or structures; the powers of the authorised person in relation to vegetation; other powers that the authorised person has; and the power to destroy or dispose of any by-product, rendering them safe in a hazardous substance emergency.

I want to raise with the Minister—and I note that the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, is a former Minister of Internal Affairs, so he may have some knowledge about this, and if he does, it would be helpful to the Committee if he were able to respond—some of the concerns that were raised by submitters to the Government Administration Committee. I note that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 262 does not deal with these two concerns that I want to raise, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he is satisfied that those concerns are adequately dealt with in the legislation as it stands.

The New Zealand Institute of Forestry expressed concern that only authorised personnel can control Fire and Emergency New Zealand personnel responding to emergencies, and it questioned how this will affect multi-agency responses. It recommended that a lead agency be identified and an incident controller be appointed in the response to any emergency incident. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s view on that. He may want to look over his shoulder to his officials—I am sure they have a view on this—and give the Committee some assurance that he is satisfied that the roles and responsibilities and, I suppose, the hierarchy of roles and responsibilities are clear in an emergency incident where there are multiple agencies involved.

I can think of the recent events with the fires in the Port Hills and statements that were made by the Minister of Defence, who is also the Minister of Civil Defence, around decision-making protocols and hierarchies, and his concern about the length of time around decisions that were made. Not entirely justified, I think—some of the comments that were made by that Minister.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Totally inappropriate, to my mind.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Totally inappropriate, Ruth Dyson describes them as. That is probably a fair description of the comments made by the Minister. But, given his concerns about the decision-making process in a multi-agency response, it seems strange to me that we have not had a response either from the Minister through an SOP or from the Government in response to that. Maybe if the Minister in the chair cannot respond to that, perhaps some Government members who were on the select committee—I see that Mark Mitchell, the Minister who was previously in the chair, is now sitting in his seat opposite. Maybe he would be able to take a call. I understand he used to be on the select committee. Maybe he would be able to take a call and assure the Committee that this legislation adequately provides for those situations where there is a multi-agency response.

The other concern that was raised by submitters—which I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on, or, as I say, perhaps from Government members who were on the select committee—is the concern raised by the Law Society that clauses 35 through to 37 are, to use its terms, “not specifically constrained to being exercised in a manner that is reasonable or necessary.”, as other clauses in the bill are. The Law Society raised the concern that there are different thresholds. Different clauses have different thresholds for response and for powers, and these may add unnecessary complexity or confusion in the bill.

Further, the Law Society submitted that the relationship between clauses 35 through to 37 and clauses 39 through to 42 is unclear in relation to which clauses an action may be taken under. The Law Society did give an example, and if the Committee will indulge me, I would like to quote from its submission: “For example, if an authorised person breaks into a house that is on fire in order to control the fire, would that person be acting under s 35(a)(ii) or clause 39(2)(b) or both?”.

The Law Society also questioned the need for clause 43. I must admit, as a layperson who was not on the Government Administration Committee and who has not examined this closely, that clause 43 did read strangely to me, and I also question the need for that clause. Clause 43 is somewhat circular, in that it says that “The performance or exercise by any person of any function, duty, or power under sections 35 to 42 is conclusive evidence of his or her authority to perform or exercise that function, duty, or power.”—i.e., by performing the function, that is evidence that they were authorised to perform that function. Maybe there is something more to this. I look back at the definition of “authorised person”, and it seems clear that the definition of “authorised person” covers that off. I am wondering what exactly the purpose of clause 43 is. It seems odd and rather circular in its wording, and I would again appreciate some clarification from the Minister.

Again, I think the Minister can give the Committee confidence with his explanation, that the concerns raised by the Law Society about clauses 35 through to 37 and their relationship with clauses 39 through to 42—that the Minister is satisfied that those concerns are not warranted—and also, perhaps, explain exactly what the purpose is of clause 43, which seems strange at first reading. I have not seen anywhere in the report—I may have just missed where it is in the report—that explains what the purpose of clause 43 is and why we need it in the bill.

There are a few questions there for the Minister. If the Minister, because he is in fact a former Minister of Internal Affairs and not the current Minister of Internal Affairs, is not able to answer those questions, then perhaps members opposite who were on the select committee might be able to provide some insight as well. Certainly, for those of us who were not on the committee, just by reading the bill and by reading the concerns that were raised, there do seem to be some issues there that warrant some explanation from the Government.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I too want to speak about the powers of authorised persons. I think it is important that within this Part 2 there are very clear rules around what the service is able to do and what it is not allowed to do. I remember one of the concerns of submitters around the powers of authorised persons was to do with shutting down the power to whole blocks, within a city block, or shutting down the water supply and the effects that that might have on people, say, who might be at home, on dialysis.

So that was raised as a potential issue. I think the Government Administration Committee was satisfied that before the authorised person would take such action—they would not take that action directly; that is the information that was given to the select committee—they would do that through the companies responsible for the power supply and through the local council. But it does raise for consideration the very serious issues of the very real powers of an authorised person and just how extensive they actually are.

I go back to my comments on the first part around service. These people, these men and women who perform these services, take pride in the responsibility that they have, and I am certain that the very real and strong powers that exist within Part 2 will be exercised in a way that is appropriate. I think that goes to the trust that New Zealanders have in the fire and emergency services. I just wanted to highlight that as one of the issues that was raised at select committee.

I also stand in support of my colleague Kris Faafoi’s Supplementary Order Paper 263. I live in a very small community with a volunteer fire brigade, and they seem to have practices and do other community services when called upon. I am told directly by that service that it is cumbersome having to do a traffic management plan. When you consider we have a community of around only 400 people, access to roads for non-emergency activities is something that I think Mr Faafoi’s Supplementary Order Paper will be great for, not only for the city folk but also in small, rural towns, although this particular instance that I am talking about is deemed to be an urban service because of the geographical location and the coverage that this service actually has.

I think it is really important that we recognise the great work that these volunteer services have, and that we do everything that makes their job easier. We were told on a number of instances during the select committee process that this was an enabling bill. I think that if this truly is an—

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair, I appreciate that. I will just take a call on Part 2, moving forward from clauses 45 through to 58, including Kris Faafoi’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) adding clause 48A. I want to start with clause 58. When I read through this, it does not make any sort of positive sense. It says here, in deleted clause 58(1): “Firebreaks on forestry land—(1) FENZ may, if it considers it necessary for the purpose of fire control, require the landholder of forestry land—(a) to make and clear any firebreak on—(i) the forestry land: (ii) any other land (with the consent of the occupier of the land or of the owner if the land is unoccupied):”. It goes on to say, in deleted clause 58(1)(b), Fire and Emergency New Zealand may require the landholder “to remove from any firebreak, or from any other part of the land on which no trees are standing, any vegetation or other material of any kind.” We have some serious problems with that, for the simple fact that it has been completely removed. It is no longer in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.

What that means, and, in fact, we are seeing it right now with the likes of the Department of Conservation, which has had a 93 percent reduction in fire management, and with no ability for the fire department—for Fire and Emergency New Zealand under this bill—to actually involve themselves and actually intervene on this matter to ensure the safety of our scrublands and our rural fire service. It goes on with an amendment—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Debate interrupted.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17, Closely Held Companies, and Remedial Matters) Bill with amendment, progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, and no progress on Māori Purposes Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 2017

(continued on Wednesday, 15 March 2017)

Karakia

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. As part of our tikanga, I would ask that we be able to do a karakia before the beginning of our hui today.

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

NUK KORAKO: Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, tēnā rā koutou e hoa mā me ō tātou mātua tīpuna, ā, ko tēnei karakia e huihui i a tā tātau katoa, kia īnoi tātou. Kei mua Koe i a mātou mahi katoa Ihowa, hei tohutohu i a mātou mahi katoa. Ko koe anō hoki te whakakaha i a mātou mahi katoa, he mea tīmata, he mea mahi, he mea whakautu i roto i a Koe. Ka whiwhi ai hoki mātou ki te ora tonu i te mea, atawhaitia nei e koe. Ko Ihu Karaiti nei hoki tō tātou Ariki. Āmene, kia ora.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments indeed to you collectively fellow colleagues and our ancestral forefathers. This prayer is to bring us together. Let us pray. You are before us in all that we do, Jehovah, to guide us in all our work. You also give us the strength in all that we do, to start it, to work on, and to respond through You and continue to receive wellness because You take care of us. Jesus Christ is indeed and also our Lord. Amen. Thank you.]

Bills

Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. In November last year I had the very real privilege of being welcomed on to Tākitimu Marae in the Hawke’s Bay for a very special day. I attended the launch of Te Arawhiti Truth and Reconciliation Report by Sir Anand Satyanand and signed the deed of settlement with the iwi and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. The hospitality showed to the Crown party by the iwi and the hapū was outstanding, and some 3 months on I am honoured to extend a warm welcome to the members of the iwi and the hapū who have travelled here today for the first reading of their bill.

To those of you who have worked so very hard to make today possible, I offer you my sincere thanks, for the enactment of this bill is going to mark the end of a long-running Treaty settlement process between the Crown and the iwi and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa—a journey that started in the early 1980s. Negotiations themselves have taken the best part of the last 10 years. While I acknowledge those who are here in the House today, I want first to mention members of the iwi and the hapū who have passed on while they were continuing their negotiations. This includes Te Ariki May and Valetta Wairau, who, sadly, passed during this process.

Can I also acknowledge the mandated representatives of Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, with the lead negotiator John Whaanga, and the chair of Te Tira, Tāmati Olsen, the trustees of the post-settlement governance entity, and, indeed, all iwi and hapū members. I acknowledge the dedication of the original claimants, who pursued recognition and justice and set up the Wairoa inquiry district working group. They had foresight, and they paved the way for the establishment of Te Tira all those years ago. Can I particularly mention Paora Whaanga for his work. I actually visited him in his home in Gisborne on the morning of the signing ceremony and presented him with the deed of settlement for his signature because he was not well enough actually to attend the signing.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the chief Crown negotiator John Harbord and the former chief Crown negotiator Pat Snedden for their dedication to the settlement, and all the Government officials for the work that they have done.

The journey to settlement stretches back many decades, when the claims across the Wairoa inquiry district were originally lodged in the 1980s. This was actually more than a generation ago. Some here were not even born. A few years later the district working group agreed to work together to resolve historical Treaty of Waitangi claims with the Crown and they established Te Tira. Te Tira strived to bring together the whānau, the iwi, and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and look for the best way to address their grievances.

It was not an easy decision to make, but Te Tira decided to forego the Waitangi Tribunal process and enter into direct negotiations with the Crown. Despite choosing this path, Te Tira never forgot their main settlement goal of telling the story of the iwi and the hapū and of recording it for future generations. This eventually led to the cathartic process of Te Arawhiti, when the grievances of iwi and hapū members were aired at Tākitimu Marae and culminated with the release of the Te Arawhiti Truth and Reconciliation Report by former Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand—and I mentioned that a little earlier. In the meantime, Te Tira received a mandate from the iwi and the hapū in February 2011 and signed an agreement in principle in June 2014. On 25 May 2016 Te Tira and the Crown initialled the deed of settlement, and that was signed in November last year. This bill provides for the final settlement of the historic claims of the iwi and the hapū. It gives effect to the deed of settlement signed last year.

The history of the Crown’s interactions with the iwi and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa is marked by land alienation, warfare, and socio-economic deprivation. From the very beginning the relationship was flawed. The Crown did not take Te Tiriti o Waitangi into the Wairoa rohe, so the iwi and the hapū actually had no opportunity to consider whether or not to sign it. In the mid-1860s, the Crown then started to purchase large areas of land. It failed to adequately survey some of the blocks it purchased. It failed to fully investigate who had customary rights. And it did not set aside adequate reserves.

Another tragic element of the relationship between the Crown and the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa was the outbreak of war, which began when the Crown attacked the Omaruhakeke kāinga on Christmas Day 1865. Some members of the iwi and the hapū were captured by the Crown and summarily executed; others were detained without trial for 2 years on the Chathams. Other members fought alongside the Crown, and this led to ongoing divisions between hapū who fought on different sides of the conflict. The war also resulted in the loss of property for Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. Under duress, members agreed to cede more than 42,000 acres of land to the Crown while those who did not sign, effectively, had their customary interests confiscated.

A year later Te Kooti led an escape from the Chatham Islands to the mainland with other prisoners. Again the Crown asked some Wairoa Māori for military assistance, and members of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa fought on both sides of the ensuing war. The Crown conducted further summary executions during conflicts during the late 1860s.

In the 20th century the Crown purchased substantial areas of land in the rohe for the Urewera consolidation scheme and to establish Te Urewera National Park. The iwi and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa were not consulted. More than 500 acres of customary land has also been compulsorily taken for public works since the 1870s. Many of the Crown’s policies have contributed to the migration of large numbers of individuals from the iwi and the hapū, and they have left their rohe. Those who have remained have endured socio-economic deprivation, and have not enjoyed the same opportunities that many other New Zealanders have enjoyed.

As I said at the signing of the deed of settlement, the Crown does not have the means to fully compensate people for the loss and prejudice they have suffered, but it is hoped that the deed of settlement will provide a good basis for the future. The settlement contains the agreed historical account, which is a very important part of any deed of settlement. The total financial and commercial value of the settlement is $100 million, making it one of the largest settlements to date. Financial and commercial redress is mostly made up of a quantum, but it also includes the right to purchase deferred selection properties and surplus Crown properties, and also the transfer of interests in the Wharerata and Patunamu forests.

There is so much more that I could say that is contained in the deed of settlement, but you can see from the shuffling of my papers that I recognise that time is starting to run out, so I will leave it to other members to talk about other aspects of it. There will be an opportunity in the select committee to have a good look at the contents of the deed of settlement as it has been incorporated in the legislation. I hope that this first reading and that the ensuing process is going to mark a new beginning in the relations between the iwi and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and the Crown, and I hope that the settlement is going to support the iwi and the hapū in realising their future endeavours and aspirations. Once again, I thank all those who have played their part in getting to this stage, and I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Kei ōku tuākana, kei ōku tungāne ngā waewaetanga o te pārekarekatanga o ngā rangatira o Ngāti Kahungunu, o tō tātou kuia tapairu a Rongomaiwahine, nau piki mai, nau kake mai! He mihi whakatau tēnei nāku ki a koutou ngā whanaunga o tōku kuia a Mirihutukatowahine kua tau mai i runga i te kaupapa o te rā nei, nau mai. Me tapatahi ai ō tātou whakaaro ki ngā mahi kai mua i te aroaro. Me tūtira mai ai hoki tātau ki roto i tēnei mahi, kia aha ai? Kia whai hua ai ō tātau na hapū, ā, kia whai hua ai ā tātou mokopuna heke iho. Nō reira, e Te Iwi, e ngā whanaunga, e kui mā, e koro mā, nau mai, hara mai, nau mai, hara mai, nau mai, hara mai! E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa.

[To you, my elder siblings and brothers, the agile legs of leisure of the esteemed ones of Ngāti Kahungunu, and of our elder and first-born womenfolk Rongomaiwahine, come forth, come hither! This is my welcome homage to you collectively the relatives of my grandmother, Mirihutukatowahine, who have arrived upon the matter of this day, welcome. Allow our thoughts to be united in regard to the tasks before us. Let us also line up as one in this work, and why? So those subtribes of ours and eventually our grandchildren will benefit from the outcomes. Hence, to you the tribe, the kinfolk, the elder women and menfolk, come forth, come hither, come aboard, welcome, welcome, welcome! Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and my acknowledgments to us all, the members of this House.]

It is indeed my privilege and honour to lead Labour’s unwavering support for the first reading of this very important, very significant piece of legislation, the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill. I too want to add my dearest acknowledgment and thanks to the many whānau who have travelled from Te Wairoa, Māhia, Waikaremoana, and those who live here in Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Kei te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has aptly laid out, in a nutshell, the parts of this bill. All that I want to add is that the bill does, like the Minister said, give effect to the deed of settlement, which was signed at Tākitimu Marae in Wairoa on 26 November 2016. We are aware that this is a settlement bill for many iwi and hapū that are covered under it. It is recognised as the fifth-largest Treaty of Waitangi settlement to date.

Just to paint where this beautiful rohe is, it is south of Gisborne, around the Wharerata Ranges and down into northern Hawke’s Bay. It includes the Māhia peninsula, the town of Wairoa, and Lake Waikaremoana. The iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa is one of six large, natural groups negotiating the settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Kahungunu. Ngāti Kahungunu is the third-largest tribal group in New Zealand. Again, while my whanaunga are in the gallery, I want to acknowledge the stellar job that many of our whānau from Te Wairoa and Māhia did in hosting the many iwi from the motu in our recently successfully held Te Matatini. Kei te mihi.

There are approximately 25,500 people in the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. As the Minister said, the bill was first lodged in the 1980s. I want to, as in the Minister’s contribution when he talked about the early 1980s, also acknowledge those who are no longer here—te ariki me people like John Scott, Lena Manuel, Ozzie Huata, and many of those kaumātua who led the people of Wairoa in a very important way. I also want to add thanks to the negotiators John Whaanga and Tāmati Olsen. I would say that we kind of are of the same era, in that both John Whaanga and I went to Victoria University together, and in that Tāmati Olsen and I were both chairpersons of our boys’ school, Te Kura Māori o Porirua. It is not an easy job to be a negotiator on behalf of your people, particularly in this claim, where the Crown wants to settle expediently and where people want more. But I want to acknowledge all the Treaty negotiators, both on the part of the iwi and also the Crown, in ensuring that we get this bill into this House.

Hopefully, touch wood, having had a quick talk with the chairman of one of the hardest select committees, Nuk Korako, as to whether there will be any problem with the quick passage of this bill, so that we can get it back into the House for the third and final reading—he assures me that there will be no issue with that. So, hopefully, we will all be working really hard as members of the Māori Affairs Committee to ensure that we are back here in a very timely manner.

In reading the legislation itself, there are some highlights that I want to draw to the House’s attention. The Minister did acknowledge the acts and omissions of the Crown, but, for me, in the acknowledgment part of the bill, clause 9 of Part 1, it talks of the native land laws and makes acknowledgments. Clause 9(9)(b)—and I do want to read it, for the benefit of the House—says that “in 1867 and 1868, the Native Land Court awarded ownership of numerous blocks in which the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa had interests to a maximum of 10 individual owners and, by allowing these owners to dispose of this land as their absolute property,”.

This raises the issue around the importance of land remaining in the hands of Māori. It raises the issue that, when we are making decisions on land, it is not individuals’ but the collective decision that is at risk here. In this acknowledgment, in this particular clause, clause 9(10), we are talking about the “Tahora 2 secret survey”, where that land was surveyed without the knowledge of the iwi. We talk about the “Tahora 2F2 survey” in clause 9(11), which says that over 803 acres more than should have been taken was taken and never returned. We go down to clause 9(12), “Administration of the East Coast Native Trust”, and clause 9(13), “Compulsory vesting of Waipaoa 5”. We have clause 9(14), “Early twentieth century Crown purchases”, and the sham of a provision in the native land laws for Māori.

This presses upon a point that I have been championing since I have been in Parliament, and that is around Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reforms. We run the risk of doing exactly what the Crown is acknowledging in this significant piece of legislation—that, through the acts and omissions of the Crown, we could potentially allow individuals to make decisions on collectively owned land. That is what this clause, clause 9, is raising when I read it. It is a timely message to us all—that in honouring this important piece of legislation for the people of Te Wairoa, we do not bring into this House legislation that could potentially lead to further alienation of land.

I also want to acknowledge that clause 9(21), “The environment”, does acknowledge that the Crown will have a relationship with Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. Clearly, we have legislation in this House around water quality and changes to the Resource Management Act—and I am only saying this, whānau, because while we are talking about this particular legislation, we have also got to keep an eye on what legislation is coming through this House that may impact on the protocols and the partnerships and the relationships you are having with these particular agencies in relation to the environment. So I leave that there for you to ponder and to consider.

I understand that this has been a well-thought-out negotiation with the Crown to get the best possible deal for our people of Te Wairoa and Māhia and Waikaremoana and Tūai. I do want to acknowledge the hard work of all those involved. I do want to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in bringing this bill back in a timely fashion. There are many challenges ahead, but, for now, this is a time to acknowledge in the House you who have travelled down to hear the first reading, to acknowledge the hard and difficult work that you have all put in to getting to this point, and to assure you that when this bill leaves this House to go to the Māori Affairs Committee to give it its due test to ensure that we have got the right settings in this piece of legislation, it is not only a time for the public to comment on this legislation but for those most affected by it to do so. I encourage not only members of this particular iwi organisation to submit to it but anybody in Te Wairoa and Māhia and Waikaremoana to come in front of the select committee to put their views upon it.

We look forward to the bill coming back into this House. Like I said, I have got a commitment from the chairperson that we will do this in an expeditious way. I assure you we want to get this bill passed before the House lifts in early August, and I wish all the whānau who have travelled far all the very best in your return home. Nō reira e te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Anei te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou te rohe o Te Wairoa, Te Māhia, Te Nūhaka koutou katoa i tae ā tīnana mai i tēnei Whare. Nei te mihi atu ki a koutou, me ō koutou kaumātua, ngā here whakapapa e hono ai tātau katoa i roto i te rohe o Ngāti Kahungunu, ā, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou! Kai te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā rangatira, ngā hākui, ngā hākoro, kai waenganui i a koutou. Hari koa rawa atu ki te tūtaki i a koutou e noho nei i tēnei wā. Kai ngā iwi o te rohe o Te Wairoa: ko Rongomaiwahine, ko Ngāi Te Rakatō, ko Ngāti Rākaipata, ko Te Whakakīnui-ā-Rua, arā, ko Ngāti Hinepua, ko Ngāi Te Ipu me Ngāi Tahumatawhāiti, ko Ngā Tokorima-ā-Hinemanuhiri, ko Ngāti Hinemihi, ko Ngāti Hinehika me ko Ngāti Hinganga. Koinei koutou, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, hara mai, hara mai ki tēnei Whare ō tātou, ēhara tēnei i Te Whare o ngāi mātau, o te ao tōrangapū—ehē! Ko Te Whare nei, Te Whare o Te Tangata o Aotearoa; ko koutou tēnā, ko tātou tēnā, koinei tō tātau Whare. Tēnā koutou, hara mai, hara mai, hara mai.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you, each and every one of you of the Wairoa, Māhia, and Nūhaka region who have arrived here physically at this House. I commend you, your elderly folk, and the genealogical ties that connect us all in the territory of Ngāti Kahungunu, so I salute you collectively indeed! I congratulate you esteemed ones, elderly women and menfolk amongst you. It is indeed a real pleasure to meet you seated here at this time. Here you are then, the tribes of the Wairoa region: Rongomaiwahine, Ngāi Te Rakatō, Ngāti Rākaipata, Te Whakakīnui-ā-Rua, namely Ngāti Hinepua, Ngāi Te Ipu and Ngāi Tahumatawhāiti, Ngā Tokorima-ā-Hinemanuhiri, Ngāti Hinemihi, Ngati Hinehika, and Ngāti Hinganga. This indeed is you collectively, and so I doff my hat to you, welcome, come forth to this House of ours, which is not ours of the political world—hell’s teeth! This House belongs to the individual of New Zealand; you are that individual, we are that individual, and this is our House. Congratulations, come hither, come forth, welcome.]

Today marks an important turning point in the relationship between ngā iwi and ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and the Crown. The signing of the deed of settlement last year in November was a significant occasion—such a proud moment. It was such an honour to be there in your presence, to see all those amazing photos of your tupuna lined up in front of the whare, to be greeted by the ope taua in a pōhiri with the wero—so proud.

It is a little bit, you know, confusing sometimes for Māori politicians to be walking in with the Crown to offer the apology on behalf of this Government to our people, but I always take it as an opportunity just to live in the moment and embrace the wairua of the occasion. How proud I was to be there with you in all your glory with all your tupuna lined up on the mahau of that whare to recognise the significant work that you and your whānau and your kuia and your kaumātua for years and years and years have been doing to bring you to this moment, and at that time to that moment.

The task has not been undertaken lightly. It is a huge responsibility that we bear to rectify the injustices of the past, to carve out a place for our present, to ensure that our children and our tamariki are catered for in this significant deed of settlement and at the signing. We put our best negotiators on it to make sure we can get the best deal for the future of all our tamariki and mokopuna for the years and the generations to come. Indeed, you feel the weight of the responsibility and the burden of that task, and it is not the end; it is merely the beginning. So I salute you today.

We need to acknowledge those who have passed, rātau kua mene atu ki Te Pō, pērā ki tērā a Te Ariki Mei ēngari anō, ko ngā kaumātua katoa kua hinga, i ā rātau e tatari ana mō tēnei wā [those who have assembled in the void, like that Te Ariki Mei, but also all the old people who died during the time that they were waiting for this moment].

Kua mate atu rātou katoa.

[They have all passed away.]

We think of those who have passed on in the recent past, but, also, in the 175 years coming to this point in time—all of those who have gone before and fought the entire way to ensure that they had the best for our tamariki and our mokopuna at every turn.

I would also like to acknowledge Paora Whaanga, Miniata Westrupp, Seenie Kahukura, and Pauline Tangiora, who have continued to provide wisdom and expertise to ensure that the story of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa is told with integrity and that people are firmly focused on the many possibilities for the future. And so many have been involved—and, of course, Tāmati Olsen, who has been acknowledged already, and Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, which is ready to take you on into the future.

The negotiation team, which was led by John Whaanga, is to be congratulated on what you have achieved. This is your story of your people, of your historical account—your history in your words. The account and the acknowledgment of the breaches and the apology are important parts.

This is the fifth-largest settlement to date—$100 million. I have been to Wairoa a bit over the last few years and spoken with your district council, and I look at the population data and think “60 percent of Te Wairoa and the surrounding district are Māori.” And I see that and go: “That’s fantastic.” Do you know what that means for your people—to look at those numbers and think about the asset that comes with that knowledge, for the people who have never given up, who are resilient, who are strong, who are here, and who lead the way? I challenge the Wairoa District Council to look at those numbers and not see it as a deficit of “Oh, no. What are we going to do? We’ve got a 60 percent Māori population.”

That is an asset, and something to be proud of. You hold the balance of power in your rohe. I was proud to see that this year, or last year, Māori wards in Wairoa were agreed to be established in the last vote, to have representative places. Whether or not you are Māori—but to have a place always there for your representation; that is significant.

Te Rohe o Te Wairoa can be proud of their many, many achievements, and you only need to look at your own representative, Tā Timi Kara, Tā Turi Kara, the first Māori Minister of Native Affairs, who also can claim the accolade of being the first Māori Prime Minister, as he took on that role in an acting position at least twice during his term.

I am inspired by your tamariki and your mokopuna, who have the vision of Te Wairoa Reorua 2040—a bilingual Wairoa. They inspire us. This future generation is already carving out a place for their future, and it recognises that Te Reo Māori is part of my future, part of their future, part of their identity, part of their cultural and language identity for Te Wairoa, and it is no surprise—it is the home of Te Ātaarangi; no surprise at all.

I have got a whole great big speech that I am not even going to get to. You know what? When I think about Te Wairoa—yes, there is a lot of suffering there sometimes; there is great deprivation there. There is hurt there. People have to go to get their dialysis treatment down in Hastings. People have to sell their land. You cannot even get home dialysis because you are on water-tank supply. But the power is in your hands. You tell us. You have 60 percent Māori population. You have one of the largest settlement redress packages ever in the history of this nation. You have a powerful community. You have hard-working people who have learnt that by the sweat of our brow we will make our bread, and you continue to do it today.

My ancestor Nuku-pewapewa was lost at the mouth of the Wairoa River trying to cross that bar. We sing and we lament of him, but he was one of many of Ngāti Kahungunu who led the way and forged a path. I do not even know what the rest of that speech said; I am just so proud to be here with you today. This is the first step, the beginning of your road, and you have got the future in the right hands with your mokopuna and your te tira whakaingoa [nomination company]. Pai te mihi atu ki a koutou, koutou i tae ā-tinana mai. Kai runga i ō koutou pokohiwi. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[It is so nice to congratulate you collectively who have arrived here physically. The responsibility is on your shoulders. Well done, congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku e Te Kaiwhakariterite i a tātau i te rā nei, e te pāpā e Tūtehounuku, nāu, tō tātau arawhata i hanga kia whakakotahi ai te wairua o tēnā, o tēnā o tātau kua tau i te ata nei, kāti. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe. Huri tū atu ngā whakaaro me ngā mihi ki ngā tini aituā o te wā i wahaina mai e ngā kaikōrero o tō tātau Whare, i ētahi o ngā aituā ki roto i te takahanga o tēnei pire, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Ki roto i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei, i mōteatea ai Te Iwi Māori i ngā aituā maha o Te Ao Māori ki runga i te atamira, ki roto o Ngāti Kahungunu, arā, ko Te Matatini. Ka pērā tonu tēnei i te rā nei ka tangi hotuhotu ki ngā aituā maha ki runga i tēnā marae o tātau. Kotahi tonu te kōrero ki a rātau kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, haere mai, haere!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa. E Tākitimu waka, e ngā uri o ngā tūpuna kua riro atu ki Te Pō, nau piki mai, nau kake mai, nau haere mai ki roto i tō koutou Whare. Ka kore tēnei e kī atu nō mātau anahe, kāhore ēngari, nau haere mai te tāhuhu o tō tātau Whare; Te Whare iringa kōrero, Te Whare whakatau kaupapa. I tēnei wā ka whakatau tātau i tō tātau kaupapa, arā, te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire e pā ana ki a koutou. Nō reira, haere mai rā koutou. E tautoko atu ana ahau i ngā kōrero a tēnā, a tēnā o tō tātau Whare, ā, kua kōrero ki te kaupapa nei.

Tuatahi ki a koe e Te Minita Tatūnga i ngā Take Tiriti o Waitangi, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe. Kua takahia nei e koe i tēnei ara whānui, ahakoa ōna piki, ahakoa ōna heke, kei konei tonu koe e hāpai ana i ngā mahi o Te Karauna hei whakapāha, hei tatū ai i ngā nawe, i ngā kerēme o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi. Kāti, ka kapohia ake e ahau tetahi o ngā kōrero o tōku tuahine nei a Meka Whaitiri. Hei tāna, ka taea tēnei pire te haere ngātahi ki roto i tēnei Whare, te haere wawe ki roto i tēnei Whare, te haere tika ki roto i tēnei Whare. Tēnā, ka toro atu te ringa o Te Rōpū Reipa ki a koe e Te Minita, inā tū ai tetahi huihuinga nunui ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata, anā, toro mai ki a mātau kia hui ngātahi, kia kite ai Te Iwi Māori i te tū kotahi o tēnei Whare nā runga i ngā kaupapa kua whakaritea nei e koe, otirā, tātau i te rā nei. Nā, ko waku mahara ki te hui nui i tū i nanahi rā mō Te Maunga o Taranaki, kāti ka waiho nā atu tērā kaupapa ki reira.

Ka whakahokia mai ki te pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te rā nei. E aku rangatira, ki roto i te pānuitanga tuatahi, kua wahaina mai e Te Minita me ngā mema o tēnei Whare, i ētahi o ngā tāngata i whakapau kaha, i heke ai te werawera ki te tutuki i ngā kaupapa kua whakaritea nei ki roto i tēnei pire. I a au e tiro atu ana ki a koutou e noho mai rā ki runga, ka kite atu ahau i a koe e te pāpā, e Pīeri, koutou ko ētahi o ngā matua—aroha mai ki te hunga kei taku tuarā—hoinō Tāmaki koutou mā, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou. E mōhio ana koutou ki ngā kōrero kei roto. Hoinō tāku i tēnei wā hei whakarāpopoto ake i ētahi o ngā āhuatanga kei roto i te pire, me te kī atu ki a koutou, e tautoko ana ahau i te kōrero a tōku tuahine a Meka me te kī atu, āe, mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi tae noa atu ki te pānuitanga tuatoru, arā, te pānuitanga whakamutunga. Kei konei mātau katoa ki te āta wetewete, ki te whakapakari ake i tēnei pire. Tēnā pea ka rerekē te pire ka kōrero nei tātau i tēnei wā ki te pire hei te tutukitanga a te pānuitanga tuatoru. Ēngari, waihonā atu mā mātau, mā Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, te pire nei e whakarite, e whakapakari, e panoni pea, e aua! Ā taihoa ake nei ka haere mai koutou ki te āta kōrero ki a mātau o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā take e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Kāti!

E toru ngā wahanga o tēnei pire. E aku rangatira kia mōhio mai koutou, anei hoki te pire—e aua, 10, 12 pea e pā ana ki ngā take Tiriti kua uru mai ki roto i tēnei Whare i a au e noho nei ki roto i Te Whare. Ka kite atu ahau i ngā wahanga e toru. Horekau he rerekētanga ki roto i ngā pire katoa, hoinō, ko ngā kōrero kei roto he mea rerekē nei. Nō reira, tuatahi ko te whakapāha a Te Karauna ki a koutou. Horekau he Māori ki runga i te mata o te whenua e whakahē ana i tērā mahi a Te Karauna, kia whakapāha atu mō ngā tūkinotanga, mō ngā hēmanawatanga kua pāngia ki runga i a tātau e Te Iwi Māori. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā whakaaro nui ēngari, ki roto i te roanga o ngā tau kei mua i a tātau ka kite mehemea, he mana kei muri i te kupu. Māmā noa iho te whakapāha atu ki Te Iwi ēngari, ki te tutuki i taua whakapāha, kia rongo ai te kiri o Te Māori i te whakapāha, kia whakahokia atu te mana motuhake i whāia nei e ō tātau mātua tūpuna, ā taihoa ake nei tātau ka kite. Koinā te wahanga tuatahi.

Ki te wāhanga tuarua, ko ngā whakaritenga ki ngā tūhononga kua whakaritea nei e te pire mā koutou hei hāpai, mā Te Karauna hei hāpai ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātau; e tika ana te kōrero a tōku tuahine nei, a Meka Whaitiri, e pā ana ki te wai. I kite atu ahau ki roto i te pire nei, ka whakahokia atu te mauri o ngā awa, me ngā repo, me ngā wāhi tapu, me ngā kāinga ki a koutou. Ēngari, ka mutu, ka tango ake anō e Te Karauna i ngā wāhi rā ki te whakarite i tetahi atu poari, aha atu raini ki te whakahaere, ki te tiaki i ngā puna wai me ngā wāhi o te kāinga. Rawa au e tino whakaae ana ki tērā tūāhuatanga, hoinō. Koinei hoki ko ngā whakaritenga i whawhai nei e koutou ki Te Karauna mō te pire nei. Tā te mea e tata pau haere ana te wā ki a au nei, ko te wahanga whakamutunga o te pire, anā, ko te rahi o te pūtea! E tautoko ana ahau i te kōrero a Te Minita, e kī nei: “Ahakoa te rahi o te pūtea ka tukuna atu ki a koutou, ko taua rahi rā ēhara i te mea, e ōrite nei ki te pūtea me te mana i tango ai Te Karauna ki roto i ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei.” Hoina anō ko te rahi o te pūtea, he rahi pūtea ka āhei koutou te tiro atu ki ngā tau kei mua i a koutou mō ngā uri whakatupu, mō ngā uri whakaheke ā taihoa ake nei.

Ki roto i te meneti whakamutunga māku, ka hoki atu waku mahara ki ngā kōrero kei roto i a au o Te Tai Tokerau, mō te hekenga o Kahungunu ki roto i a koutou, te moe ngātahi ki tō koutou tupuna a Rongomaiwahine, me ngā—e hoa, koinā te kino o tērā tangata! Ko te kaha whai i ngā wahine Māori—kāti. Ko koutou tērā kua tae mai i te rā nei. He mea pai tēnā te kite atu i tō tātau whakapapa. Ko tō tātau whakapapa ka kore e kitea ki roto i ngā pire o Te Whare Pāremata nei, ā taihoa ake nei tātau ka wānanga, ka tūhono anō tātau o Te Tai Tokerau ki a koutou e ōku whanaunga, e ōku rangatira kua tae mai i te rā nei. Kāti, ko te manako, kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga o Te Kaihanga ki runga i a koutou, otirā, ki runga i a tātau, kia haere tōtika tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata—kāti. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to acknowledge you the one who put our prayer together on this day, father figure Tūtehounuku, you indeed created our ladder to unify the spirit of that one and that one who arrived here this morning. A huge appreciation to you. Thoughts and tributes turn to the innumerable deaths of the moment borne here by contributors of our House, some occurred during the transgression of this bill right up to the present moment. Throughout the weeks just past, Māori iwi lamented the many deaths in Māoridom within Ngāti Kahuhungunu upon the stage, in other words at Matatini. This one continues to do that, sobbing mournfully for the many deaths upon that marae of ours. There is only one thing to say to them who have gone to the void, welcome back depart!

I bring the lines of address back upon us esteemed ones, salutations and acknowledgments to you, and to us all. To you the waka of Tākitimu and to the descendants of the ancestral forefathers who have gone to the void, welcome, come hither, welcome, clamber aboard, welcome into your House. This one will not say that this House is solely ours, no, but welcome to the ridgepole of our House; the House where contributions are suspended and policies settled. At this moment we are considering your policy, in other words, the first reading of this bill about you. So welcome indeed to you collectively. I endorse the comments by that one and that one of our House and will address this policy now.

First of all, to you the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, I truly commend you. You have traversed this extensive path and despite its ups and downs, you are still here supporting what the Crown has to do in terms of an apology, and how to settle the grievances and claims of that iwi and that one. Well then, I grab up one of my sister colleague Meka Whaitiri’s comments. According to her, it is possible for this bill to go through this House jointly, quickly, and directly. And so the Labour Party extends its hand to you Minister that should a gathering of significance be held in Parliament House, why not reciprocate by extending a hand for us to meet jointly to demonstrate to Māori iwi that this House stand as one on proposals you, in other words, we have considered on this day. As far as my thoughts are concerned about that huge meeting held yesterday for Mount Taranaki, I will leave that matter there!

I will bring my thoughts back to the bill that is before us on this day. During the first reading, esteemed ones, the Minister and members of this House, brought to bear individuals who expended energy and shed perspiration to fulfil proposals that had been considered within this bill. As I look up at you collectively sitting up there, I see you father figure Pīeri, you and some parents—my apologies to the ones behind my back—but nevertheless to you ones Tāmaki, I congratulate you collectively. You know what the comments are inside. My task here is to summarise some aspects that are within the bill, and to assure you collectively that I support the contribution by my sister colleague Meka, from the first reading right through to the third reading, in other words, to the final reading. We are here to analyse and to strengthen this bill. Perhaps, the bill we are talking about at this moment will be different to the one at the conclusion of the third reading. But leave it for us, for the ones of the Māori Affairs Committee to arrange, strengthen, change, or whatever. Shortly you will come before us the Māori Affairs Committee to have frank discussions about matters concerning this bill. Enough!

There are three parts to this bill. Esteemed ones, kindly note, here indeed is the bill—I am unsure about this, but I think there have been 10 or 12 Treaty matters that have entered this House in the time that I have sat in it. I have only seen three parts. There have not been any differences in all the bills, however, the commentaries inside are all quite different. And so the first part is the Crown’s apology to you collectively. There is not a single Māori on the face of this earth who will oppose that action by the Crown, to apologise for its violations and stress that affected us the Māori people. And so I compliment that great thought, but the future will tell whether the words behind the apology are effectual. Making an apology to the iwi is easy, but achieving it so that the apology is felt keenly and owned personally, and the self-determination sought by our ancestral forefathers is returned, we will see in due time. That indeed is the first part.

And now to the second part, to those provisions and supplements considered by the bill for you collectively and the Crown to take up in years to come; what my sister colleague Meka Whaitiri said in terms of the water is right. I note in this bill that the vital essence of rivers, swamps, sacred places, and habitats are to be returned to you. But the Crown will eventually take over such places by arranging a board, or something similar, to administer and protect water sources and regional habitats. I will never ever agree to that kind of situation, however. These then are the provisions that you are fighting the Crown about for this bill. Because my time has nearly expired, I go directly to the final part of this bill, and behold, the size of the funding! I endorse the comment of the Minister, which states as follows: “Regardless of the size of the funding released to you on that day, it is not as though it is similar to the funding and validity that the Crown took over the many, many years that have passed.” However, the size of the funding is an amount that you collectively will be able to look forward to in years to come, for the current generation of young ones, and for those to come.

In the minutes that I have left, my thoughts go back to the comments within me of the North about Kahungunu’s coming down to be among you, to sleep with your ancestress Rongomaiwahine, and the—heck, mate, that was a wicked side of that person! He really went after Māori women—but enough of that. You are the ones who have arrived here on this day. Seeing our genealogy is a wonderful thing. Our genealogies are never seen in Parliament bills, but very shortly we will debate and link us of the North to you collectively once again, my relatives and esteemed ones who have arrived here today. Well then, it is the hope that the kindness of the Creator descends upon you collectively but at the same time upon us, and that this bill go smoothly through the House—enough. Salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively and to all of us.]

NUK KORAKO (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā anō koe. E mihi atu ki Te Mana Whenua o Te Waha o Te Ika, a Te Ātiawa; tēnā koutou, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Haere mai e ka waka katoa e tau mai nei ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Nō reira, ki a koe e te rohe o Te Wairoa, e mihi atu ki a koe e te whanauka, e Te Waka o Tākitimu, a Ngati Kahungunu, ki a koe Rongomaiwahine; e mihi atu ki a koutou. Ko Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori o Te Whare Pāremata e mihi nei, e tangi nei, ki a koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira, koutou e tūmanakohia ake nei huri noa i Te Whare Mīere, nei e mihi ki ngā mema katoa, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[My appreciation once again to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge the territorial rights to the Mouth of the Fish, Wellington Harbour, of Te Ātiawa; greetings to you collectively and to us all throughout this House. Welcome to the canoes that have arrived here at the Great Bay of Tara, Wellington Harbour. Therefore, to you the Wairoa region, I acknowledge you the relative Ngāti Kahungunu of the Tākitimu canoe and you too Rongomaiwahine; greetings to you both. This is the Māori Affairs Committee of Parliament acknowledging and lamenting you collectively, and extolling the goods that you collectively throughout the Beehive desire for, so compliments to all members and, consequently, to us all.]

It is indeed a privilege to be here with the iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa at the beginning of the end of their journey toward a full and final settlement of the wrongs committed against them by the Crown. Before I start, though, I do want to acknowledge our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Hon Christopher Finlayson, and also his beginning today by acknowledging those who have actually passed away and who did not see the beginning, really, here today of the first reading. I want also to acknowledge my aunt who came from Nuhaka, and that was Auntie Hinemanuhiri Nēpia Sinclair, who, obviously, married my uncle, Ngāi Tahu Uncle Douglas Sinclair. I want to acknowledge her today because she was very much a strength within our whānau as well, even though she lived most of her time, actually, in the North.

The iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa are defined by their geographic location within the rohe of Te Wairoa, covering the northern Hawke’s Bay and southern Gisborne. In the settlement process, they are represented by Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, and if we look at the history of Māori in the Wairoa, they actually never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. They did not choose not to sign; the Crown simply never took the Treaty to Wairoa, so they did not have the opportunity to do that. When the Crown brought war to the North Island, the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa tried to remain peaceful. They became involved only when the Crown attacked the Omaruhakeke kāinga on Christmas Day in 1865. Some of those who fought against the Crown were captured and either summarily executed or held without trial on the Chatham Islands. Others chose to fight with the Crown, and as a result the wars led to deep divisions between the hapū who fought on the opposing sides. Members of the iwi and the hapū of Te Wairoa also fought on both sides of the war after the escape of Te Kooti from the Chatham Islands, and there was more loss of life as a result.

The Crown acquired hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Māori in Te Rohe o Te Wairoa through what could only be described as fraudulent means. When the collective owners of the land declined to sell it to the Crown, the Crown instead purchased the land from individual owners, who did not have the right to sell. The Crown paid various parties for so-called purchases of land, including iwi who did not have interests in the land and individual owners who did not have agreement from the collective owners. The Native Land Court also had a part to play in this confiscation of land, awarding title in collectively held land to individual owners, who could then dispose of it how they wished and for their own benefit. In another instance, collective owners of the block of land agreed on a sale price, and the Crown unilaterally reduced the price. The iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa have also had more than 500 acres confiscated under the Public Works Act. In one case, Māori land was confiscated while the Crown leased nearby land from its Pākehā owners.

The Crown cannot, and never will, fully compensate the iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa for the pain of the deaths caused by Crown wars, for the loss of land over many years, or for the devastating effects that those losses have had on the well-being of Māori in Te Wairoa. The essence of this, as well—and particularly to show good faith—is that there is here an act of generosity by the iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa in accepting the redress offered in this deed of settlement as a full and final settlement of their claims. The deed of settlement includes significant cultural redress. This cultural redress is not about providing land for economic development but recognising the traditional, the historical, the cultural, and the spiritual associations of the iwi and the hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa with these certain places and sites. The five sites of significance to the iwi and hapū will be vested in their post-settlement governance entity, which will then gift them back to the Crown for the continued enjoyment of the people of New Zealand. That is the essence of true partnership, and that is the essence of these people and the way that they actually believe in partnership—to move their settlement to its final destination at the third reading and to acknowledge the wonderful gifts that they have given back to this country and its people.

As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it is indeed our honour to actually receive this bill, and we will ensure that the passage of this bill, from the first reading and the second reading through to the third reading, will be able to be done hopefully before the rising of the House in August. On that note, we are, as my colleague Meka Whaitiri actually said, dedicated to trying to conclude this settlement as soon as possible. Nō reira, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rakatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I want to join with others in the House in welcoming the people and the leaders of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa to the House today. We celebrate with them in this first reading of their Treaty settlement bill. Before I start, I want to similarly join with others in acknowledging the process that has occurred to get this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge those who have worked so hard on this bill. They started 30 years ago, the negotiations for this settlement, so I want to acknowledge all those who have exercised that amazing persistence over those decades and over those generations to get this bill to the House.

I also want to acknowledge those who have passed away along the way. I want to recognise the fact that the settlement covers problems and issues and injustices that have occurred since, basically, the 1840s. The first issue where the Crown acted in a way that they really should not have towards the people was around not offering Te Tiriti o Waitangi to the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa at all. That was the first one, but then, of course, there have been others since. I acknowledge the apology that the Crown has made, which is set out in the settlement deed and is also set out in the legislation. I also acknowledge the truth and reconciliation process that has occurred as a result of the settlement process. All those things are about healing—healing the hurts that have occurred across generations. But the settlement itself—and I think we should acknowledge this—is not really about reparation. It is actually a deed of settlement and it is an agreed historical account, but it is not full compensation.

I want to just touch on some of the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that are listed in this settlement bill. Those breaches around the alienation of land go right back through to the 1860s with the Crown purchases in 1864 to 1868 when they used some very dodgy practices around surveying and not investigating customary rights to actually acquire 83,000 acres of land. Then it continued in 1867 when the Crown basically put Māori under extreme duress to acquire another 42,000 acres. Then, again, in 1875 the Crown basically exploited confusion about the legal status of blocks around Lake Waikaremoana to acquire another 178,000 acres of land. Then, of course, there are the issues around the Native Land Court and the breaking up of customary and collectively owned land into individual ownership in 1867 and 1868, which actually allowed the Crown to onsell individual blocks of land. Then there is the other matter, which was from the 1870s: more than 500 acres of land were acquired compulsorily from iwi and hapū under the Public Works Act—and it has been noted, and it is noted in the settlement deed—while Pākehā neighbours had their land leased, so it was not alienated from them continually.

What happens when the alienation of land occurs is that the economic base is removed from the people, and this is exactly what happened to the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa—not only the economic base, of course. There are also the spiritual elements and the kaitiaki roles, which also become alienated.

The other parts of the settlement refer to the introduction of war, the summary execution of prisoners, and the detention without trial of some of their people on the Chatham Islands. As I say, that really just cannot be compensated for. It is harrowing reading—it really is harrowing reading. So if it is harrowing reading for me, then it must be even worse for those whose tūpuna lived through this.

I will just, now, address what the settlement actually is. Others have said it before—it is actually the fifth-largest settlement. It is about $100 million in various ways. We have to acknowledge that that is the best settlement that the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa could actually get from the negotiations, but we also have to recognise that it is a deal. The Greens will say this at every reading, but we do not actually recognise that it is a full and final settlement, even though that is what is written in the legislation, because it is not full by any stretch of the imagination and we do not believe that it is final, because there is no way of telling, at this stage, what the impact of those historical breaches will be on future generations. But we recognise that to get this bill to the House and to go through the processes that the iwi and hapū have gone through is a huge achievement.

We also want to acknowledge the generosity of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, not only in accepting a settlement that does not actually compensate for their losses but also for accepting that five different parcels of land in the conservation area will be returned, including the Māhia Peninsula and the Mōrere Springs Scenic Reserves, but that the iwi and hapū will then gift them back to the Crown. That is incredibly generous. We also, in this settlement, see that there is the right of first refusal on 147 properties. Again, we recognise the patience and persistence of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, in that they may have to wait some time to be able to acquire those properties.

We recognise that for the 25,500 people, under the 2013 census, who are part of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, this is the recognition of a better social and economic future. They have, I think we need to recognise, not only lost their land; they have also lost their language and lost their place. It is in the deed of settlement, I think, that by 2001 more than 90 percent of the iwi and hapū were living outside of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. We see this as the start of the restoration of the mana of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa in their role as kaitiaki of their lands and rivers and wetlands in their areas. So it is good to see that that statutory recognition is outlined in the settlement.

I want to finish just by touching on the apology. I think it is really important that these are included in the settlement deeds. I wanted to just look at the clause that says that “The Crown admits that the cumulative effect of its Treaty breaches has been very significant damage to the cultural, spiritual, and physical well-being of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, as well as to their economic development. (f) The Crown seeks to restore its tarnished honour and to atone for its past failures to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles”. I do not think the Crown can do that, but this is the start of a true Treaty relationship, and we recognise this. We celebrate with the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, and we commend this bill to the House and will see it through to its second and third readings. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā hoki koe, tēnā hoki tātou e Te Whare! Ngā kupu tuatahi māku, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia ki a koe te tuakana, e Nuk. Nāu nei i whakaritengia i a tātou noho tahi i te rā nei. Tua atu i tēnā, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au, ki te whakatau i ā koutou, ngā whanaunga nā te mea, i rongo au i ngā kōrero o tōku tuakana a Peeni i whakahuangia te hononga i waenga i a Kahungunu ki a koutou, nō reira ahakoa he tū wāhi iti tēnei ēngari kia mōhio mai koutou, ka nui te pūhaehae i roto i a au, i aha ai? Nā te mea, ahakoa kīhai koutou i hainatia te Tiriti ēngari i a mātou o roto o Ngāpuhi, ko mātou tetahi o ngā iwi tuatahi i hainatia Te Tiriti, horekau i whakatau o mātou kerēme ēngari, ēhara nā koutou te hē, nā mātou hoki! Kia ahatia? Ēngari, e tū atu tēnei mō Te Rōpū Aotearoa Tuatahi ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, nā reira, i mua i tōku huringa ki roto i tō tātou reo tuarua, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou i tau mai nei ki waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei.

[And so greetings as well to you and to us also, the House. My first words are to endorse the tributes accorded by your elder colleague, Nuk. It was you indeed who considered a prayer in regards to our coming together today. Further to that, I endorse the tributes accorded by the speakers who got up before me to pay homage to you, collectively, the relations. I heard the comments by my elder sibling Peeni, who related the connection that existed between you and Kahungunu. Therefore, despite this being a short call, you have to understand there is much envy in me, and why? Because even though you never ever signed the Treaty but we from within Ngāpuhi, were one of the first tribes to sign the Treaty and have not settled. But that is not your fault. It really is ours as well. But so what? But I stand here for New Zealand First to support this bill, therefore, and before I turn to our second language, I have much admiration for you who landed here amongst us on this day.]

It is really a pleasure to stand and participate in these debates, particularly where settlements have been negotiated, and the process of legislating the actual settlement is brought before us in circumstances like today. This bill is no different from those bills that have already come before this House and enacted the settlements for a number of iwi. It recognises the loss and prejudices that the iwi have suffered as a consequence of the shortcomings of the Crown.

Although we acknowledge that this settlement cannot and can never fully compensate the iwi for their loss, at least the attempt has been made. It has been negotiated between Crown representatives and iwi representatives, and so we have come to this stage. But I just want to say to the people who represented the iwi—the negotiators—that history will show that you have been responsible for reaching this settlement. If experience is anything to go by, after the settlement you will always find some within your own iwi, your own hapū, your own whānau, who will have a disagreement in terms of the settlement. So history will show that you have been responsible for a lot of what has been negotiated. Although you will know that there will be a lot of other things that you were not able to negotiate, to those who will always criticise you, that is irrelevant. So I just want to put that on record, to remind you that, in spite of the good work that you have done, there will always be some people who will have a different view.

This bill, as has already been indicated by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, has taken a long process, which started back in the 1980s. I think that it is a credit to all involved in bringing this bill to this stage—their tenacity and their commitment to seeing a settlement and, hopefully, an endurable settlement that will benefit not only the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, but their wider community and, indeed, New Zealand. For those of our wider community who often criticise this process and the settlements that have been made, I hope that they will take the time to read the history and the background leading up to this settlement. It does not make very good reading in terms of the relationship between the Crown and iwi.

One thing that caught my eye was when fighting broke out between the Crown and Māori in other regions in the 1860s, the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa worked hard to maintain peace among themselves in the rohe. But here I want to quote exactly: “War began there only when the Crown attacked the Oamaruhakeke kāinga on Christmas Day 1865.” For me, from the North, and a member of the Ngāti Hine iwi, Christmas Day is a very significant day in the history of the Ruapekapeka Pā. It was on that day that the Crown chose to enter the pā while my tūpuna were in prayer. It seems to me that that appeared to be a common practice of the Crown—having brought the good word to Aotearoa, then using the good word against Māori. That, to me, is a small indication of just how the Crown treated Māori at the time. Some would say that they still treat Māori like that today, but I will not go so far as to say that. But, suffice it to say, going through the bill, the summary of the historical account makes for pretty poor reading in terms of how the Crown treated the iwi and the hapū of Te Wairoa.

I also want to say that one of the reasons behind this settlement, and I must say it is the first one that I have actually seen where it has been articulated in the bill—is in regard to Te Reo and education. The Crown acknowledges the significant harm that children of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa suffered by being punished for speaking their own language in Crown-established schools. I want to say that the Government has introduced a new group, called Te Mātāwai, that is charged with revitalising the use of Te Reo Māori. Kahungunu has a representative on that group, one by the name of Jeremy MacLeod, I think, who will be a good representative for you and will ensure that the iwi and the hapū participate in the process that Te Mātāwai proposes in terms of revitalising the language.

Time is moving on. I just want to reiterate that New Zealand First certainly supports the bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. We hope that the people who may have a concern about what has been negotiated will take the opportunity of coming before the committee and expressing their views. Recent experiences show that after people have signed the agreement between their iwi and the Crown, they are now wanting to relitigate some of the things that they agreed to in the original signing of the agreement.

I just want to acknowledge again the people of Te Wairoa, whose claim this bill is about, and to commend them for the good work they have done in bringing it to this stage. Nā reira tēnā koe, tēnā hoki tātou.

[Therefore, I thank you and us as well!]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Whare i tēnei rā. E rau rangatira mā, ko tēnei taku mihi ki a koutou katoa, kia ora mai tātou.

[And so, my appreciation to you the House on this day. Esteemed ones and others, this is my acknowledgment and accolade to you and us all collectively.]

It is a pleasure to speak to this bill, the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill, in its first reading. I would like to acknowledge and reiterate some of the pathway that brings us here today. This body of work started many years ago, but it has actually made quite good progress in this past decade.

If we look back to February 2011, the Crown first recognised the mandate for this bill, and then a year later the terms of negotiation were completed. In June 2014 there was agreement in principle, and in May 2016 the deed of settlement was initiated by the Crown. The post-settlement governance entity and the deed of settlement were then ratified in August 2016, and in November 2016 the deed of settlement was signed. I would like to also acknowledge the Minister and all the officials who made such good progress once the legal formalities were commenced.

The settlement has the standard three parts to it: the historical account, the cultural redress, and the financial and commercial redress. I would like to briefly talk to each of those headings. Under the historical account there are four main components in and amongst the breadth of the agreed historical account. Specifically, there is the Crown’s apology for the war it fought against those members of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa it deemed to be rebels; secondly, its unjust attack on the Omaruhakeke kāinga in 1865; thirdly, the summary execution of prisoners in 1866; and, fourthly, the detention without trial of some members of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairua on the Chatham Islands from 1866 to 1868.

Within that redress there is also the cultural redress, and it has three components to it—three main themes, if you like. There is the vesting, the statutory acknowledgments, and the deeds of recognition. The vesting is around a number of sites that are vested in the iwi and then gifted back to the Crown for the benefit of the people of New Zealand, and these sites include the Māhia peninsula, Morere Springs, Te Reinga Scenic Reserve, and a number of others. So this is the vesting.

There are also the statutory acknowledgments. Statutory acknowledgments recognise the association between the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and a particular site or area. They enhance the ability of the iwi and the hapū to participate in specific resource management processes, and there are a number of conservation areas and reserves that are included in the statutory acknowledgment.

The third tool under “Cultural redress” is the deeds of recognition. The deeds of recognition oblige the Crown to consult with Tātau Tātau o Te Wairua Trust on specific matters and to have regard to its views regarding the special association of the iwi and hapū with certain areas, and, again, these are well specified in the deed of settlement.

The financial and commercial redress, as has been commentated, is the fifth-largest settlement—$100 million. On settlement date, Tātau Tātau o Te Wairua will receive a cash sum of $88,964,250 and the right to purchase 24 properties from the Treaty settlements land bank.

It is a pleasure to commence the parliamentary proceedings on this bill. I very much look forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee, where we can scrutinise it further and see how much more we can do for this iwi. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā whānau whānui o Te Iwi me ngā hapū o te rohe o Wairoa, nau mai, haere mai!

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the extended families of the tribe and subtribes of the Wairoa region, welcome, come hither!]

I stand privileged to be able to take a call on the first reading of your bill, and I am really pleased to see that this has come to the House so quickly. I attended the signing of your settlement at Tākitimu Marae last year with the Minister, and I was just saying to my colleague Nuk Korako: “Boy, it’s come around real quickly.” I am so pleased that it has come around really quickly, because, being the fifth-largest settlement that this Government is making, it is really important to start the procedures and move them along very quickly for you. Also, 62 hapū is a big number of hapū that belong to you, so speed is what we are here to do to make sure that we do the process that is befitting of your claim, ngā whānau.

I just want to thank you all for coming here today. I look forward to the bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, I no longer sit on that select committee, but I know that it will do a very good job under the leadership and chairmanship of my colleague Nuk Korako. So, without any further kōrero, I think let us get on with it, let us get this bill into the select committee, let us start hearing what your whānau has to say about your bill, and let us start speeding it towards the third reading and, finally, it going into law. So, kia ora and congratulations. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā rā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tuatahi māku e Nuk, mihi kau atu ki a koe, nāu nei whakapūaretia tō tātou huihuinga i tēnei ata mā ngā kupu karakia, e mihi au ki a koe! Nāu i whakatū te arawhata ki tō tātou Matua i Te Rangi, hei honohono i Te Rangi ki Te Whenua, Te Whenua ki Te Rangi. E ngā whanaunga kua tatū mai ki konei ki raro i Te Tuanui o Tō Tātou Whare, nau mai, haere mai, ki roto i tēnei Te Whare o Te Motu. Nau mai, piki mai, haere mai. Pīkaungia mai ngā tini mate kei runga i ō koutou pokowhiwhi, kia ūtaina mai ki runga, kia tūhonohono mai rātou ki ngā mate o konei; nā reira, hurirauna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you kindly, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me, Nuk, is to acknowledge you, who opened our assembly this morning with words of blessings; I compliment you. You are the one that set up the ladder to Our Father in heaven, to link up heaven to the earth, and the earth to heaven. To you the relatives who have arrived here below the roof of our House, welcome, come hither into this House of the nation. Come forth, climb aboard, come hither, welcome. Bring forth the many deaths upon your shoulders to be placed above so that they link up with the dead here; therefore, salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively throughout and to us all.]

I am privileged to rise and speak on this first reading of the bill. Last night I spent a number of hours reading through the deed of settlement, and, let me say, I started to highlight the pieces of the deed of settlement that started to annoy me, in the historical account. I found that it was just, basically, a waste of time highlighting the parts that annoyed me and angered me, because it was just about the whole page, and it would have been an easier exercise to highlight the parts that did not annoy me or offend me. The historical account—there are 29 pages of it, and it does not do justice to all the decades of hurt and theft, the alienation, what happened to the people, te iwi me ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. In fact, if there was a university course on how to alienate, disenfranchise, steal, and commit cultural genocide, basically this historical account is the blueprint for that.

I would like to go through a number of the historical issues that occurred, but, first of all, I will just fall back on the words of one of my Ngāpuhi tūpuna, Te Atua Wera, when he said to his friend Kāwiti: “Kua hurihia e te pākehātanga Te Tiriti hei pūngāwerewere hei kai i a tātou Te Iwi Māori. Ko ōna whēkau, ōna toto, ka ngotea, ka kainga. Ka whakarērea ki muri ko te pāpaka. He rite tātou ki te pāpaka o te tātarakihi. Ko taua pākaka, ko tātou Te Iwi Māori.”

[“The translated English version has turned the Treaty into a spider to devour us the Māori people. Its internal organs and blood are sucked up and consumed. What is left behind is the scab. We are like the scab of the cicada. That scab is us, the Māori people.”]

Basically, what that translates to mean is: Te Atua Wera said to his friend Kāwiti that the Pākehā has turned his Treaty into a spider to devour us, the Māori people. Its innards and its blood and its guts have been sucked out and consumed, and all that is left is the shell, like the shell of a cicada. That cicada is us, the Māori people. That, to me, is the perfect description from our tūpuna to describe what has happened to our people throughout the country. As I say, the historical account for te iwi me ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Wairoa gives embodiment to those words, the prophecy of Te Atua Wera.

As the Minister and Dr Shane Reti said, the people of that area did not actually have an opportunity to sign Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It never ever went into their area, which means the people of those tribes were signed up to a covenant that they actually never signed up to, and they have been made to account to a covenant that they never actually saw at all, never actually bought into. That in itself is unfair.

As we know, Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Māori rangatiratanga their resources, and yet one of the things that the people of the area did, in, I think it was, about the 1860s, was they decided to lease out some of their land. Yet they were prohibited from doing that by a law that says they cannot lease out their land. So it just makes a mockery of rangatiratanga, where Māori cannot even make use of the resources that they have, because of a covenant that they were signed up to, even though they did not sign up to that covenant.

In the 1860s all this stuff started. The first contact with Pākehā was in the 1830s, with people who were trading flax and guns. Whalers turned up by the 1850s; there were hundreds of Māori in the area who were part of the whole whaling industry. Between 1864 and 1868 some 83,000 acres of land was acquired by the Crown. We say “acquired”—we cannot really say “bought”; we cannot really say—

Meka Whaitiri: Gifted.

KELVIN DAVIS: —“gifted” or “traded”. It was acquired by dubious means. The Māhia purchase on 20 October 1864—the Crown acquired 14,600 acres. The very next day the protests began about the acquisition of that land. Often, one of the tactics used by the Crown on multiple-owned land was to go and get one or two or three people and tell them that that land is theirs. Basically, systematically alienate land, acre by acre by acre—sometimes tens if not hundreds of thousands of acres at a time—simply by buying off an individual, when the land was actually multiple-owned.

There was the Nūhaka purchase. This is really interesting; it talks about the 39th parallel—that sort of brings up visions of the line between the USA and Canada or between North and South Korea, but instead we had our own 39th parallel—where south of the parallel was the Hawke’s Bay province, and north of the parallel was the Auckland province. There was land that straddled both sides of it. Look, to be honest, I have read and reread the particular part of the historical accounts as to how the land was alienated, and I am still confused. There was something like 110,000 acres of land, and putting everything aside—the convoluted way that the land was alienated from the people—I can almost guarantee right now, for the people sitting up in the gallery now, that just about none of that land will actually be in their possession now. That is the end outcome. Regardless of how it happened and how dubiously it happened, the end outcome is that the people sitting up in the gallery and the people back at the hau kāinga—basically, that land is no longer in their possession, and that is what is really wrong about this whole bill.

There were gross errors in land estimates. So someone would go along and go “Oh yeah, that looks like 14,000 acres.”, and in reality it was more—grossly overestimated or underestimated, again with the sole purpose of alienating those people from their land. The surveys lacked consideration of iwi-identified landmarks. So the iwi would say: “Well, OK, we’re going to sell this bit of land. You can go to that river or that maunga or that beach.” Instead the iwi landmarks were basically ignored, in many instances.

The Sim Commission in 1927 just seems like a total joke. It seems like a tool of the Crown to confirm really that what it did wrong was actually right. I do not know who the native affairs Minister was at that time, but he seems pretty hopeless. He did not make decisions, or if he did make decisions, they were not made in the best interests of the people. Reserves that were meant to be set aside were not set aside. Of course the old Native Land Court, where you divvy the land up, award it to 10 people, and say “Sorry” to all the other thousand people who have an interest in that land, “we’ve given it to these 10.”—that happened all over the place. I could go on—I have lost count; I did not add up how many tens of thousands of acres were alienated. The net result is that the people up in the gallery—it is time for them to receive what is duly theirs.

The other point I just quickly want to make is about the summary execution of prisoners, of Māori. When we talk about summary execution, normally we think of the Germans lining people up against walls and mowing them down, or the Japanese beheading Allied soldiers, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and we are disgusted by that. But this happened here in New Zealand, and this we cannot ever forget. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Permission has been granted for a waiata, if you wish—[Interruption] No? Then I will call on Government order of the day No. 10.

Bills

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill be now read a third time. Today is a very historic day for Whanganui iwi, for all iwi who look to the river, for the people and the communities of the great region of Whanganui, and, indeed, for our country. It is appropriate that I start off by welcoming the people of Whanganui who are here to mark the passage of this significant piece of legislation into law. I know that some had a particularly early start, and I am really pleased that they are here to share the day with members of Parliament.

In a third reading it is appropriate to acknowledge those who have played such an important role in reaching this stage. Can I start, as I should, by acknowledging all tūpuna who led the way with the first petitions to Parliament as far back as 1873, who have persistently—in every court of this land, including the Privy Council—pursued justice over the years. I have already mentioned this in my first reading speech, but I want to acknowledge the leaders and the trust board members, many of whom have passed away. I particularly remember, as indeed we all do, the late and great Sir Archie Taiaroa, who had such a wonderful vision for Te Awa Tupua.

I want to acknowledge the past negotiation team and river claim presentation leaders who have passed away but have made a huge contribution to this journey. Can I particularly acknowledge the members of the trust board and the negotiating team, some of whom are in the gallery today: Te Tiwha Puketapu, John Maihi, Te Turi Ranginui, Piki Taiaroa, Raumatiki Henry Tūroa, Frana Chase, Beryl Millar, Daryn Te Uamairangi, Nancy Tuaine, and Gerrard Albert. In particular, Gerrard, thank you so very much for bringing this settlement home for your people.

The Whanganui negotiators have been unrelenting in pursuit of this settlement. They brought the wairua of Te Awa Tupua to the negotiating table. They reminded the Crown of its obligations and held it accountable for its actions, and the result is a truly unique settlement. The framework for the river would not have been possible without the support of all iwi with interests in the Whanganui River catchment, and I want to acknowledge their leadership, both collectively and individually. I am delighted to see Sir Tumu te Heuheu in the gallery. I acknowledge his longstanding support.

I also acknowledge the leadership and support of my old friend Tiwha Bell of Ngāti Maniapoto. I am so pleased that Ngāti Maniapoto has recently concluded a memorandum of understanding with Whanganui River, which acknowledges each other’s mana and confirms their shared commitment to working together in the implementation of the framework. I know the Hon Nanaia Mahuta will join with me—we are so pleased that this great iwi, which has shown such generosity of spirit to their neighbours over many years, is now engaged in negotiations. I look forward to that day when a deed of settlement can be signed between Ngāti Maniapoto and the Crown.

I want to reassure those iwi with interests in the river that nothing in these arrangements is going to usurp their mana or the exercise of their customary rights and responsibilities. Te Awa Tupua expressly recognises and upholds the inalienable connection of all iwi and hapū with Te Awa Tupua, and it provides for their active participation in the new arrangements.

Can I acknowledge both the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister. These were, at times, tense negotiations, but they were very supportive throughout. I have said many times that the role I undertake as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations would simply be impossible without their support. I acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker—without bringing you into the debate—because we know that you have been the member for Whanganui since 2005, and during your time in the House you have really been a great support for Whanganui and for me as we have worked toward this settlement.

I acknowledge Dame Tariana Turia, mainly because it would be very dangerous not to acknowledge her, but, more importantly, because she has made a wonderful contribution to this settlement as well, and she is a very good friend of mine.

I want to acknowledge the role of local government in supporting this settlement. I have said it before and I will say it again, how very lucky Whanganui was at this critical time to have a mayor like Annette Main. She has played a major role in this settlement, and she is excited by it as well.

Finally, I want to pay my respects to and express my admiration for Dr John Wood, my chief Crown negotiator, He is the one who is the brains behind this settlement on behalf of the Crown. He really is a great New Zealander, and I want to thank him for his ongoing contribution today. And I want to thank all my officials at the Office of Treaty Settlements and the various Government agencies who have contributed.

At the heart of this settlement is the whakataukī: “Rere kau mai Te Awa Nui nei, mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa. Ko au Te Awa; ko Te Awa ko au.”

[“This great river flows from the mountains of the national park to the sea. I am the river; the river is me.”]

That whakataukī encapsulates the very essence of the river and its people. By 1840 the iwi and the hapū of Whanganui possessed and exercised rights and responsibilities in relation to the river in accordance with their tikanga. A substantial population was settled along the river and its major tributaries, yet within 100 years the Crown’s actions and inactions disenfranchised iwi from their relationship with the river. The Crown, for example, allowed steamers to ply the river, resulting in the destruction of fishing pā, and river gravel was extracted and sold. The Crown did not properly engage or involve iwi in the management of the river, but the iwi stood their ground and fought and fought and fought so that their calls for justice were finally answered.

The whakataukī I recited a few minutes ago, I said it is at the heart of this settlement, but Te Awa Tupua forms its foundation. The legislation recognises Te Awa Tupua as an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements. It recognises Te Awa Tupua as a legal person, with all the corresponding rights, duties, and responsibilities. This really is something very special, and it is already gaining attention both nationally and internationally.

For more than 150 years the iwi have been unwavering in their efforts to have their interests recognised and the health and well-being of the river protected. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the iwi lead the development of the framework enshrined in this bill. However, Whanganui iwi have been very clear that the framework is collaborative and inclusive, and that it both recognises the status and the values of the river and looks strategically to the long term. Although the relationship is inalienable, Whanganui iwi have also sought to work alongside local government, Crown agencies, other iwi, and the communities of the river in negotiating these arrangements.

Te Awa Tupua is at the very centre of the new arrangements, and it is going to ensure that the river is viewed as an integrated whole when any matters relating to or affecting the river are being considered. The integrated and inclusive nature of the framework encompasses not only the iwi and other iwi and hapū with interests in the river but the community generally. So it really is an exciting day for Parliament, because this longstanding grievance is brought to an end by the passage of this legislation, and I very much look forward to working with the iwi on the appointments to Te Pou Tupua and to seeing this wonderful river, which is at the very centre of the central North Island, repaired and regenerated over the years to come.

Not having heard a bell but looking at the clock, I know my time is almost over, so can I thank all iwi representatives for being here today and finish with the great whakataukī: the great river flows from the mountains to the sea. We now have an arrangement that will be an enduring arrangement and is the start of something very, very special. I commend the bill to the House.

Waiata

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe e Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koutou e ngā Iwi o Te Awa o Whanganui, tēnā tātou katoa. Ko tēnei mahi nunui o tēnei rā, ko te kaupapa wheneki o Te Whare mō te kawa o Te Whare Pāremata, nō reira, te wairua tanapū, te kauwae, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you, the House, standing here, and to you, the tribes of the Whanganui River, salutations to us all. This matter of huge significance today relates to the policy of this House in regard to the procedure of Parliament, and so to the rearing spirit and to the jawbone, much appreciation to you collectively and to us all.]

Greetings everybody. Because I am the Speaker during this session, I am not allowed to make a speech, but there is another whakataukī that Dame Tariana will agree with and that is that rules are made to be broken. I did not want the give up the opportunity to sit in this place and bask in the reflected glory of the people I care very, very much about and have had the privilege to represent for 12 years, and my clever cousin. So I have chosen to sit in the big chair, and until the intervention of Auntie Julie, I thought I was running the show. Nevertheless, it is a terrific day to be here and a wonderful occasion to celebrate with you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Mr Deputy Speaker, e tū tautoko ana ahau Te Reo wakamoemiti ka tukuna atu e te tuakana a Tūtehounuku Korako, nō reira e te tuakana, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe. Otirā, korōria hareruia ki a koe e Ihowa o ngā mano, tūāuriuri, whāioio. Kī tonu te rangi me te w’enua i te nui o tāu korōria, ā, tīhei mauri ora! Mai i Te Rakiura ki Te Tonga, whiti atu ki Te Wharekauri, ki Te Rāwhiti toro atu ki Te Uru, piki ake ki Te Reinga ki Te Tai Tokerau, ngā kokonga e whā o te motu o Aotearoa, tae atu ki Te Awa Tupua e rere nei.

Ka huri atu au ki ngā whānau i raro i te kapua pōuri, nō reira, e ngā mate maha o te wā, hoki wairua atu ki a rātau mā i te wāhi ngaro. Haere atu rā ki tua o te ārai ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātau mō te tangata. Oti atu te wā ki a koutou nō reira e oki, e moe, e moe, ā kāti mō tēnā! Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e piri ana taku mihi atu ki aku whanaunga ki te mihi kua tukuna atu e koe, otirā, ki te mihi mai i Te Minita.

Nō reira, koutou ngā whānau, ngā hapū katoa o Te Awa o W’anganui, anei au tō koutou whanaunga e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, nau mai, haramai, whakatau mai rā ki Te Whare Pāremata nei, nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. E tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā hapū me ngā rohe tūpuna katoa, puta noa i Te Awa o W’anganui i tēnei rā, tēnei rā whakahirahira! Nō reira koutou mā, nau mai, haramai, whakatau mai rā! He tino hōnore tēnei kia tū ake i roto i Te Whare nei ki te tuku kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire ātaahua, tēnei pire whakahirahira.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the prayer that the senior member Tūtehounuku Korako gave, and so much appreciation to you, the elder member, but, at the same time, glory and hallelujah to You, Jehovah of the countless thousands, of the innumerable, and of the very numerous. Heaven and Earth are filled with the greatness of Your glory, behold the breath of life! Across from the Stewart Island in the south, over to the east to the Chatham Islands and extending up to the west and to the North Cape in the Far North, to the four corners of the country of New Zealand, including the Supernatural River flowing here.

I turn my attention to the families beneath the cloud of sadness, and so to you, the many deceased of the moment, return spiritually to them of the place unseen. Go forth indeed beyond the veil to the original home for us mankind. The time for you has come to pass; therefore, rest, sleep, and slumber on! Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, my tribute is closely aligned with that accorded by you to my relatives but, at the same time, to that one accorded by the Minister.

Therefore, to all of the families and subtribes of the Whanganui River, here I am, your relative, according this tribute to you all. Welcome, come hither to this House of Parliament, and so salutations to you all. It is fitting that I pay you, the subtribes, and all the ancestral areas a tribute throughout the river of Whanganui on this day. This indeed is a real honour to stand up in this House to make a contribution about this beautiful bill, this bill of significance.]

It gives me great pleasure and it is a true honour to stand before this House and speak to Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill before us. I am very much taken by the way in which this settlement has come about. There are aspects within this bill that are quite unique. But first of all, I want to talk not only about the uniqueness of the framework but also about the uniqueness of how the whole process has been used in a very new way. I think it is important to add my mihi to the acknowledgment that the Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, has made to the negotiators. I want to acknowledge the tenacity and, indeed, the courage of the negotiators, on both sides of the table. As someone who has been through the process as a negotiator, I truly do understand the difficulties of that whole pathway.

I want to acknowledge that within the framework of the negotiations there truly has been a paradigm shift in the way that it has been expressed. It is a very difficult and quite fixed process. The process has been fixed not only by the guidelines and the rules but also by the practice up until now—the practice that has seen the aspects and the redress items within a settlement package being redetermined by, I was going to say mātauranga Māori, but mātauranga o Whanganui. That is a very important aspect to acknowledge—for example, te heke ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua [the autumnal descent upon the Supernatural River].

Te heke ngahuru is the first autumn migration of eels, signifying well-stocked storehouses for the winter. The name is said to symbolise the potential of Te Awa Tupua to provide for all who have cared for and protected it as a living spiritual and physical source. You will not find that aspect in any other settlement before today. And this is just one of many.

I want to acknowledge the courage that the negotiators on both sides of the table have taken to redefine how the settlement process can work. It can have a process that is pretty fixed but can be adjusted for the purposes of the iwi of Whanganui. This is an important day. I acknowledge those negotiators who had the foresight to be able to take those concepts and apply them within a framework that is not ours. I have said often in this House that this claims settlement process is flawed; it is a flawed one. But we enter into it for the purpose of providing a better way forward for our future generations. So I want to take that whakaaro, te heke ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua [that thought, the autumnal descent upon the Supernatural River aboard] and apply it to the future—looking forward to the future—and I want to acknowledge all of the rangatahi who have made the journey from the awa to the Parliament Buildings today.

This settlement is for you and future generations. It is important to recognise that this settlement will provide a better way forward for future generations. I should actually leave the main points of what I want to bring up to the words of the people from home. You would have noticed, as I did, that my Facebook feed has been flooded with messages from a whole lot of people from home who have talked about the importance of today. There are messages about wishing everyone a blessed day. I want to add my whakaaro to that as well. There are messages from people who could not make it to Parliament today but who are watching on Parliament TV. I want to acknowledge all of them as well.

I thought I would just read out one message that really captured everything that I wanted to say today. I am borrowing these words from one of my cousins: “Today our awa becomes recognised in its own right.” Ngā manga iti, ngā manga nui, e honohono kau ana, ka tupu hei Awa Tupua.

[Small and large creeks immediately joining together to form the Supernatural River.]

It is a difficult construct for people to come to terms with, but that is the beauty of this journey.

Ngā mihi atu ki a koe Nancy Tuaine mō ngā kupu nei.

[My thanks to you, Nancy Tuaine, for these words.]

I hope you do not mind that I have borrowed them. I also want to acknowledge everyone who has sent messages.

E tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koe e Te Ariki Tumu, ngā mihi nui ki a koe kua tae mai, oti noa, ngā iwi katoa puta noa Te Awa o W’anganui. Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, oti noa i tēnei wā, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i runga te tukunga iho ō rātau mā i te wāhi ngaro, ko Te Māngai hei tautoko mai, āianei ake nei, āe!

[It is apt that I acknowledge you, Paramount Chief Tumu. My huge thanks to you for attendance here, alongside all of the tribes from throughout the river of Whanganui. Therefore, I will not be standing for a long time at this point in time. Many thanks to you all in terms of what they from the place unseen have handed down. The Mouthpiece indeed is the one who will support it, now and forever, yes.]

Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koutou ōku pou, ōku rahi. Tēnā koe e te tungāne, tīmata i te hekenga o ngā roimata i a au e kōrero ana nei, ko te taura whiri o Hinengākau ki ōna tungāne a Tamaūpoko rāua ko Tūpoho.

[So thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations to you collectively my pillars and my numerous! Thank you, brother. Tears began to descend as I was speaking here about Hinengākau’s rope plait to her brothers Tamaūpoko and Tūpoho.]

Today this day of all days I greet the kuia Hinengakau and her brothers Tamaūpoko, and Tupoho.

He muka nā te taura whiri o Hinengākau.

[It is a fibre from Hinengākau’s rope plait.]

We welcome all those who descend from the sacred threads of the interwoven rope of Hinengakau—the rope that binds them together as one. In a legislative sense, the sacred rope connects all those who have descended from Ruatipua, Paerangi, and Haunui-ā-Pāpārangi to take up their customary rights and responsibilities in respect of the Whanganui River. But in a spiritual sense, te taura whiri o Hinengakau connects further beyond to a period when there were close to 200 kāinga whenua on the banks and cliffs of the Whanganui River, with many more other kāinga along the tributaries. We can know of the life-force of that time through the words left by the late Rangitihi Tahupārae.

Ngā manga iti e honohono kau ana, ka hono, ka tupu hei awa, hei Awa Tupua.

[The small creeks that link up accordingly, join up and develop as a river to become the Ancestral River.]

The small streams that run into one another and continue to link and swell until the river is formed—indeed a great river. Today, then, it is our day to acknowledge the great river, Te Awa Tupua.

On 18 March 1994 the late Atawhai Taiaroa stood at Pūtiki Marae, in his role as chairman of the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board, and told the tribunal that the Whanganui iwi are embarrassed after 118 years of making applications to different levels of Government. This is our tupuna awa. This is our ancestor. To come again today to make that same presentation and, as such, they are saying this: “This is it.”

He referred to the petition of Te Keepa Rangihiwinui on the Timber Floating Bill of 1873, and it is the first named claimant, Hikaia Amohia, who died over a century later, in 1991, and all those before, during, and after the passage of legislation that this bill becomes a memorial to. During that first hearing at Pūtiki the people lost one of their kuia, Nanny Lucy, the whāngai daughter of Hekenui Whakarake and sister to Hōhepa Hekenui, two of the original Whanganui River claimants.

Te hunga wairua moves in many ways to remind us of what is important, and with the passing of someone so intimately associated with its origins, this bill wears their tears. It carries their memories. It reflects their dreams. So many have passed, with their lives having borne testimony to the stories that brought us here today. So, in this third reading, I want to dedicate my time to that kuia and all the kuia who have given so much of themselves to keep strengthening the interwoven rope of Hinengakau for this day to arrive.

Ko te wai anake e rere ana, ko te whakaaro tahi ki te whakapono.

[Only the water flows on, the single intention is to the belief.]

The historical claims of Whanganui iwi as they relate to the Whanganui River bear the imprint of all those who have cried over the course of this journey. In 1895 Mereaina Rauangina and 151 other Whanganui women petitioned Parliament “to prevent the operation of the law of Government to remove stones from out of the Whanganui River”. The petitioners objected “so that the Government will not destroy our eel-weirs, our lamprey-weirs, our whitebait dams and the flood currents of the river”.

Seven years ago the beloved kuia Te Manawanui Pauro passed away at an incredible 102 years of age. Her kōrero to the tribunal about the impact of the gravel extraction taken from the river must not be forgotten—gravel extraction that destroyed beds that provided habitat for fish and, ultimately, contributed to the depletion of traditional fisheries.

Ko te tangi a te kuia nei, ka pēwhea aku mokopuna, ka ngaro ngā kai, ka ngaro te mana me te whakaae koe, kia riro i a Tauiwa ngā mana o ō tūpuna i roto i te wai.

[The lament of this elderly woman is what will become of my grandchildren if food and authority disappear should you agree for the European to acquire the powers that our ancestors have in the water.]

“What will become of my grandchildren? The River stocks will suffer and its mana will suffer if you allow tauiwi to take the mana of our tupuna.” In 1996 that same kuia stood at the wānanga at Rānana and told the people: “Ko te ngaro o tō mita, ka ngaro ō maunga, ō awa, ō tūpuna ki te ako i tō mita, ka hokihoki mai, ō maunga, ō awa, ō tūpuna.”

[“With the loss of your dialect, your mountains and rivers are lost. With your ancestors to teach your dialect, bring back your mountains, rivers, and ancestors that are lost.”]

“If you lose your language, you lose your mountains, your rivers, and your ancestors. If you learn your language, you regain your mountains, river, and ancestors.”

All of these messages from our kuia, our wāhine rangatira, are important. They strengthen the substance of the framework: he pā auroa nā Te Awa Tupua [a protracted fortified village that belong to the Ancestral River].

This bill reflects the voices of women: Auntie Joan, Nanny Sophie, Nanny Grace, Nanny Nui, the kuia Julie Ranginui, Auntie Dardanella, Dame Tariana, Nancy—the grandmothers, wives, mothers, and daughters who stood alongside their men, who gave instructions in subtle and bold ways, who supported the kōrero with karanga and waiata, and who sang of the spirit of Te Awa Tupua, mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa [from the National Park to the sea], who sacrificed and compromised and wept and waited. Their waiata and whakataukī, and their karanga and karakia provide other means to understand te mana o te awa. They help describe the heart and soul from which to interpret te mana o te iwi.

Te Ruruku Whakatupua, as it is expressed in this bill, represents immense forbearance, compromise, and generosity on the part of Whanganui iwi. It represents a loving legacy of more than 150 years to both protect the Whanganui River and provide for the special relationship of the Whanganui iwi with the river—and I say “loving” deliberately. One of the anthems of the river people, “Auē Te Aroha”, embodies the challenge issued by the kuia Moe Ānaera Ruka: utaina ki runga i Te Waka o Te Ora [load it upon the Canoe of Life]—in other words, embark upon the canoe of life.

Pāpā Anatipa, in his book Taku Whare E, shared whakataukī of the marae of Pūtiki, Te Rōpū Kapa Haka or Pūtiki Māori Club: “Pūtikitia te Aroha”—bind together in love. It is an incredibly consistent, compassionate, courageous call for unity, singing, praying, speaking together in love, ever mindful of the messages left from beyond to draw upon the māramatanga and the mobilisation of the people in defiance of Crown actions in relation to the river. Pākaitore—79 days of action, crystallising the anger but also consolidating the resolve of the people to stand strong through it all. The kuia Te Paea Arapata lamented to the tribunal on the loss of customary knowledge:

E ngaro ana te mātauranga ō mātou nei mātua, ka whakaoti katoa te hā i a au Te Māori i te mea, ko au Te Māori, he aroha tōku hoa.

[The knowledge of our parents is missing. Indeed, that will totally complete the tenor within me of being Māori because I am Māori and empathy is my friend.]

Our mātauranga was in decline and our essence as Māori was being extinguished on account of our inherently trusting nature.

Māori culture is a complementary culture, where the voices of women and men shape our story to provide the depth of our kōrero today. I have chosen today to focus on the stories of women, but I could just as easily have spoken of their brothers and their fathers, and both have found physical and spiritual sustenance from the river from time immemorial. Our part in the journey as a select committee has been only a moment of that 150 years that the people have been calling for justice, but although our time immersed in the story is brief, what was undeniable was the profound connection to the Awa Tupua of each and every one who appeared or presented to the Māori Affairs Committee on the river’s behalf. They told us: “Kauaka e kōrero mō Te Awa ēngari, kōrero ki Te Awa!”

[“Do not talk about the River but speak to it!”]

Do not merely talk about the river; speak to and commune with the river. So we too went to the river, a journey where you felt the impact of decades of gravel extraction, pollution, diversion, and losses and suffering and delays and denials, and yet the river still flows on.

Like the many twists and turns of Te Awa Tupua, the journey to reach the final conclusion of this settlement process for the iwi of Whanganui has been one of wonder and splendour, but it has also been tinged with sadness and loss for those who have championed the Wai 167 claim: the late Hikaia Amohia, the late Sir Archie John Te Atawhai Taiaroa, the late Joan Akapita, and many, many others—in fact, too many to mention. As we, the Māori Party, stand in solidarity with them, we treasure and pay tribute to all those who have carried their Te taura whiri o Hinengākau [Hinengākau’s rope plait] into this House and, in doing so, we remember the call: E Te Iwi Māori, puritia kia mau, utaina ki runga i Te Waka o Te ora, ka hoe ai ki te tauranga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[To you, the Māori people, hold it securely, place it upon the Canoe of Life, and then row it to the terminal. Acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): E Te Māngai o Te Whare whati ture, mihi kau ana ki a koe, e ai ki a mātau o Te Nōta, nō roto o Ngāti Hine e mea atu, hara mai taua āhua. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki a koe mō tō tū ki te mihi atu ki wēnei, ngā tāngata nāu nei i tū hei pononga mō rātau, nā reira mihi kau ana ki a koe e Te Māngai.

“Ā, ēhara taku rangatira i a Kāingaroa he purupuru, he taka. Ka pā tau ake ko hau, ko te tītī, ko te rua, ko te ata tama puru, ko te rangimārie, ko te angaanga titi iho i te rangi, kia pōhutuhutu ki roto i Te Moana-ā-Whiti, te māreretanga taurā here a Pokopoko taniwha ki runga i a Rangiriri. Ka tere, ka rere, ka mimiti te tai ki Taumārere, ka totō ki Hokianga, ka mimiti te tai ki Hokianga, ka totō ki Taumārere, ā, kāti ka tau!”

Tēnei te uri o aua puna e rua nō Te Tai Tokerau; Te Hokianga ka rere atu ki Te Tai Tamatāne, me Te Taumārere, ka rere atu ki Te Tai Tamawahine. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou ngā uri o Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui, tēnā rā koutou katoa. E Te Ariki, Tā Tumu, mihi kau ana ki a koe. Tua atu i a koe, kore au e whakahuahuatia i ngā ingoa, i te mea, mōhio ana ahau ka mahue wētahi. Ēngari, e harikoa ana te kite i te tini ō koutou kua whakarauikatia mai ki raro i te tuanui o tō tātau Whare. Mōhio ana tātau mehemea e hiahia ana mātau ki te whakakī i ngā tūru kei runga rā, me kōrero i ngā take e pā ana ki Te Tiriti. Mehemea e hiahia ana mātau kia whakawātea aua tūru, me kōrero i ngā take e pā ana ki te tāke. Inapō rā nā mātau i kōrerohia i tētahi kaupapa mō ngā take—hā? Horekau he tangata hei mātakitaki, ēngari, e pai ana. Kei konei koutou, kei te mihi atu ahau ki a koutou. Tēnā rā koutou, tēnā rā koutou, tēnā rā tātau katoa.

[Mr Deputy Speaker who breaks laws, I indeed acknowledge you, as we of the Far North, within Ngāti Hine, say, come hither that situation. And so I really commend you for standing up to acknowledge these ones, these persons who you indeed stood as a servant for them. Therefore, I truly acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

“And so, my esteemed one, Kāingaroa is not a caulking that dropped off. But I the sooty shearwater, the chasm, the caulked morning, the peacefulness, the head that shines from heaven, and for the kinship link that drops off of the Pokopoko monster upon Rangiriri to splash about in the sea of Whiti. The tide flows, flees, and diminishes at Taumārere; it gushes up at Hokianga, and diminishes at Taumārere, and subsides at last!”

This one is the descendant of both pools of the Far North: the Hokianga flows out to the west coast, and the Taumārere out to the east coast. I salute you the descendants of the supernatural river of Whanganui, acknowledgments indeed to you all. Acknowledgments to you indeed paramount chief, Sir Tumu. I will not mention any other names beyond you, in case I leave out someone. But I am pleased to see the countless many that have assembled here under the roof of our House. We all know that if we want to fill the seats up there, we must talk about matters pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi. If we want to clear those seats, we must talk about matters that concern taxes. Last night we talked about a matter that related to taxes—but what happened? No one was there watching, but that is fine. You are here, and I acknowledge you collectively. Well done, congratulations to you collectively and to all of us.]

As a descendant of the sacred puna of the Tai Tokerau that is the Hokianga, which flows to what we say is the tai tamatāne, or the male side of the island, and also a descendant of Taumārere, which we say is a river, our puna, that flows to the female side of the island, I greet the descendants of Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui. It is a great occasion, and I would like to say that I believe that the bill itself is quite revolutionary. I heard the Minister say that it is an example across New Zealand but also throughout the world—this model that has been proposed to ensure that the best interests of Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui are maintained from now into the future.

The fact that we have created a way of making the river an indivisible entity, from the very headwaters down to where it flows out into the sea, encompassing all the catchment areas, I believe is a superb model. We have to make sure that we look after every single part of that indivisible entity. As we have heard Marama Fox say, there is a history of digging the shingle out, and that has ruined the habitats for fish and for the fauna and the flora. There has no doubt been pollution. There has been nutrient run-off. This bill, when it is finalised, will ensure that there is a body that is going to make sure that the best interests of the awa are looked after. Like I say, we have to look after every single bit—the small tributaries, the little lakes, streams, and drains, right out to where the river flows out to the oceans and right up to the headwaters.

If we imagine the river being a person, we have to look after the whole part of the person. You can guarantee that if you shoot somebody in the head, their feet are going to die as well. It is the same with the river. If we mistreat any one part of the river, it is going to affect the whole river, and that should never be allowed to happen again. We want our children to be able to not just swim in rivers, do bombs off the banks and off the logs, and eel, and do everything that our tūpuna used to do. We do not just want them to be able to wade in rivers and wade in the water. We want them to be able to swim. We want them to be able to do their bombs and swimming and to drink the water, and that is when we know that the river is entirely cared for and loved.

So Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill establishes a framework to look after the awa. As I have said, it recognises the status of the Whanganui River and its tributaries as Te Awa Tupua—an integrated living whole, from the mountains to the sea. It establishes the river as a legal entity in its own right and has its own legal standing. That reflects the view of the river as a living whole and enables the river to have its own independent voice. Of course, that voice is manifested in the two people who will be appointed to the role of Te Pou Tupua. They will be trustees who act on behalf and in the name of Te Awa Tupua and uphold its status and promote its health and well-being. When we talk about the health and well-being of the river we are actually talking about the health and well-being of the people as well.

So the Pou Tupua will be jointly appointed by iwi and the Crown. They will develop a set of Awa Tupua values. This is where I believe this bill is fantastic. It allows iwi to say that “These are the values that we hold for our river.” I do not know that it has happened before—perhaps with the Waikato River settlement—but it is about time that iwi have a real say in the values that they believe our rivers should be managed under. There will be a whole-of-river strategy, and the strategy will be developed by collaboration, including iwi, central and local government, commercial and recreational users, and other community groups. So nobody is being left out here. If anyone stands up and says “Oh, those blimmin Māoris again. They’re wanting to take over.”—no, that is not the case. This is totally inclusive.

The strategy is going to ensure the long-term environmental, social, cultural, and economic health of the river. I just have one little question, or one little thing, to plead: please do not let the economic values or the economic plans override the social, the cultural, and the environmental well-being of the river. That is my plea. The group is going to have ongoing roles in monitoring the implementation of the strategy, providing a forum for raising issues, and reviewing the strategy after 10 years. Again, it is great that it is going to be a living process that keeps getting reviewed and looked after, just to ensure that everything is on track and the river is being cared for as it should be.

There is going to be a fund of $30 million to help look after, as part of the settlement—a contestable fund available to any person or group or entity seeking funding for initiatives related to Te Awa Tupua, and that fund will be administered by Te Pou Tupua. It is great that Parliament has decided not only do we want Māori to have a say on how the river is run and cared for and maintained but actually there is going to be some putea to support those goals and ambitions. It is one thing to say here “Māori, you can do this.”, and then there is no financial support and resource to actually be able to implement all the goals and dreams and aspirations. So I applaud the Government for its putea.

My time is quickly running out, but let me just say that it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak. We as Māori have this intense identity with our awa, with our maunga, with our environment, and, as the Minister has said, and it has been said many times on other bills that we have settled, ko ahau te awa; ko te awa ko ahau—as people we are at one and indivisible from our river. So again, I repeat, if we look after our river, then we are actually looking after ourselves and our people.

Nō reira, huri rauna i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātau.

[Therefore, accolades and congratulations to you collectively throughout our House, and my appreciation to us all once again.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā rā koutou ngā pouwaitaka ō tō tātou mātua tupuna. E, ka mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i Te Raki, ko Ia te tīmātaka me te whakaotinga o Te Ao katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki Te Kaihōmai ō kā mea pai katoa! Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou kai tua kua wehe ki Te Ao wairua. E, nō reira e koutou rā, o ia marae, o ia iwi, o ia waka, e haere ruka ki te ara whānui a Tāne, ko tua o te ārai, haere, haere, e haere atu rā!

Ā tēnei te mihi mō Te Iwi o Whanganu, tēnei te mihi ki ngā uri ko Kupe, Haunui-a-Paparangi, Haupipi o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua. Nō reira e koutou rā, e mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa nunui, mauria mai, mauria mai! Nō reira, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, e huihui takata, a tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa! Tēnei te mihi ki ngā rakatira o Te Whanganui Iwi, tēnei te mihi mō Te Ariki Rakatira o Tūwharetoa, ki a koe e Tā Tumu. Ā, tēnei te mihi mō te rangatira whaea o Te Whanganui, e Dame Tariana, nō reira, ka nunui te mihi.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to you collectively the pillars of our ancestral forefathers. It is indeed a thing of importance to acknowledge our Great Father in Heaven. He is the beginning and ending of all things in the world. Therefore, I acknowledge the Provider of all good things! We remember those who have departed to the Spiritual Realm. And so to you collectively of each courtyard, tribe, and canoe, traverse the broad path of Tāne to beyond the divide. Go forth, depart, farewell!

I acknowledge the tribe of Whanganui and the descendants of Kupe, Haunui-ā-Paparangi, and Haupipi of Tamatea-Pōkai-Whenua, and so to you collectively, bring forth your teachings to this matter of huge significance. Bring it here, come forth! And so welcome, salutations, pay homage to Parliament, the gatherer of people. Therefore, I salute and acknowledge you collectively, and commend you all. I acknowledge the leaders of the Whanganui tribe and the paramount chief of Tūwharetoa, you, Sir Tumu. I acknowledge you, Dame Tariana Tūria, leading matriarch of Whanganui; the acknowledgment is huge.]

Here we are at the third reading in the final journey of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. It is indeed my honour and my pleasure as the kaiwhakahaere of the Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori to be able to kōrero in this third reading. My kōrero is very much about the journey that has happened since the bill has come to the House.

This bill is an innovative and world-leading solution to a very complex and, at times, a very, very controversial issue. It is not easy to balance the competing interests of multiple iwi and those other users in the way they appropriately respect the river—tangata whenua and all who now use and benefit from the river.

Before I go into more details on some of the aspects of this bill, which was considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to acknowledge a few of the other key people in this process: first of all, the Whanganui iwi, who have been involved in this process right from the beginning. I also want to thank you for your manaaki, your aroha, and your tautoko to the Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Maōri when we came to Whanganui to hear the submissions, kanohi ki te kanohi.

There is also the leadership, as I mentioned, of the negotiators and the lawyers who have worked on your behalf. I want to acknowledge, as the Minister did, the Crown negotiator John Wood and also his staff, who have played such a key part in this. I also know that in putting together such groundbreaking legislation, there is an important part of this House, a supportive part, that is called the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It had a particularly challenging job, so I acknowledge Briar Gordon for the role that she has played, and her staff, and the assistance that she gave to the Māori Affairs Committee. I also acknowledge the officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements who, again, worked tirelessly throughout this process from the very early stages of negotiation.

I also want to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and I challenge anyone, particularly from outside this House, who believes that Māori MPs actually do not do a good job here, particularly on these Treaty settlement bills. We are a very, very pragmatic and hard-working committee. What we always have said is “Let’s park our political affiliations at the door and let’s get on with what is the best for our people.”, and this is a reflection, e hoa mā, of the work that we do.

I want to acknowledge also the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who is no longer actually on our committee, but we miss you and we love you. We do miss you. We miss that very, very sort of passive, but strong, leadership that you have shown—kia ora to you.

Despite the bill being the result of a consultation and negotiation process that has actually already happened, there was real work for the committee to do, and we had to carefully consider some of the complex and controversial issues relating to the bill. I just want to highlight some of the changes that were recommended by the Māori Affairs Committee.

In particular, there were concerns that were raised about the reference to some groups as hapū—groups that would consider themselves to be iwi in their own right. What has happened here is that part of the foundation on which the bill is built is a report from the 1950 royal commission of inquiry into the bed of the Whanganui River, which defined those groups with an interest in the river. Parts of this bill that refer back to that report will continue to refer to groups such as Ngāti Uenuku and Ngāti Hauā as hapū. However, that is in no way an indication of how those groups should be referred to. To make sure this is clear, we have recommended an amendment to state that Ngāti Uenuku and Ngāti Hauā may be viewed as iwi within the broader context of the Whanganui iwi.

Another issue we encountered was the fact that this bill requires the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to be responsible for appointing a Crown representative to Te Pou Tupua. However, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is a role that will not exist indefinitely. In fact, thanks to this Government’s actions in progressing the Treaty settlements efficiently, it is a role that may cease to exist sooner rather than later. So for that reason we recommend an amendment that after the first nomination by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, future nominations will be the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. We chose the environment portfolio as the most appropriate place for the responsibility to rest because Te Awa Tupua is a freshwater body that falls under the management of the Resource Management Act. We also recommended that when we make such nominations, the Minister for the Environment should be required to consult with the Minister for Māori Development, the Minister of Conservation, and any other relevant Ministers.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the architect of this incredible piece of legislation. I have been to a number of conferences offshore and all they want to hear about is our Treaty settlement process. When I cite this particular bill, they are in absolute awe as to how we have actually associated a river—a mighty river—with, and given it, the identity of the person, and also as to the fact that that river is such an important and intricate part of people’s lives, indigenous Māori and non-Māori, and they want to know how we have actually made that work. So I want to absolutely acknowledge the Minister, Chris Finlayson.

Finally, it has been an incredible privilege to chair the Māori Affairs Committee, to be a part of those wonderful people who make it up, and then also to be part of the process of passing this really world-leading piece of legislation. I say to all of our Whanganui iwi members, whānau tautoko, all of you, you should be proud—and I know you are—of this piece of legislation, and as proud as we are to be able to assist this legislation and to try to make it better, which is our role as members of the Māori Affairs Committee.

Finally, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Ngā mihi o te rā ki a koutou, ā, e ngā manuhiri, Te Whanganui Iwi, ngā Hapū, ngā kaitiaki katoa o Te Awa Nui, ā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Salutations of the day to you collectively and to the visitors, the Whanganui tribe, the subtribes, and to all the guardians of the great river. Acknowledgments to all of you.]

Before I begin to address the business before us, with your indulgence, I would just like to put on the record of the House an acknowledgement of the passing of a remarkable New Zealander. Maggie Lawton, who was a scientist, a businesswoman, a policy maker, and later in life a politician—a member of the Otago Regional Council—sadly passed away a day or two ago. She was a leader—a leader of a sort that not only sets high standards but then enables people to meet those standards. She was a proud mother, with reason to be proud, and, above all, she will be remembered for her leadership and for her commitment to the well-being of this country and all of those people in it.

Ki ngā mate e whā, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai i roto i Te Ringa o Te Atua, haere, haere, haere rā. Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, mauri ora.

[To the four deaths, sleep, rest, and slumber in the arms of God. Depart, go forth, and farewell. Let the dead remain among the dead, and the living among the living. Let there be life.]

To return to much happier matters, it is a great pleasure and it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the Greens in support of this quite remarkable piece of legislation. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations referred to it as historic, and it is historic in many ways, not only for at least partly putting right the harm that has been done to Whanganui iwi, and, indeed, to the awa over many years, but also to the extent to which it does break new ground or strengthen our commitment to embedding Te Ao Māori into Pākehā law. That is a remarkable step. It is remarkable progress.

In one of my former lives I was fortunate to be a lecturer. I taught in resource management. One of the tasks we set our students quite early on in the programme was to challenge them, in a sense, to understand their own world view—the way in which they interpreted and saw and understood the world. It was thin ice for academics to be challenging young people at that level, at that very fundamental level, about their values and beliefs. But the purpose of it, in part, was to enable them to recognise and to strengthen their awareness that although they had a particular world view—a product of their culture, of their upbringing, of their whānau, and of all of those things that influence us as human beings—the people with whom they would engage in terms of their professional career would also have a particular and a unique world view. It was endeavouring to help those students understand the importance of respecting and understanding other people’s, as well as their own, positions.

One of the key challenges we put to our students was to ask them about their understanding of the relationship between humans and the non-human world. Given that many of them came from a Pākehā, predominantly Western, cultural background—a very rational, dare I say it, world view—often they would see human beings as separate from the rest of the world, from nature, from this thing we call the environment. We did not seek to prove those students wrong, but we certainly wanted to challenge them so that they could explicitly state something about those assumptions and those beliefs. For many of them there was that sense of dualism, of people being separate from the rest of the natural world.

One of the readings I would require of students was an article written in 1972 by an American legal academic called Christopher Stone, and it was called “Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects”. To say it was controversial at the time would be an understatement. The proposition was that, yes, we routinely assign rights to human beings, but that changes over time. At one time women had many fewer rights than men, if any, indeed. Some women would argue that has not changed dramatically. For many people the notion of assigning rights to non-human entities was a step too far, and yet they would understand—or accept, rather—that corporations, that companies, and that trusts could have the rights of a natural person. So it ought not to have been, but it turned out to be, rather difficult—“unthinkable” was the word he used—for some people to accept the proposition from this Christopher Stone, who was, as I say, an American legal academic in 1972.

He said this: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment—indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.” In academic circles, legal circles, and political circles that was a bombshell. It was deemed laughable, ridiculous, and unworkable. It is interesting that I think for indigenous people, not least of all Māori, there is no such barrier to assigning legal rights and agency and personhood to natural objects, because we as Māori understand we are linked through whakapapa to those elements in the landscape. We are linked through whakapapa to our mountains, to our rivers, to our moana, to our forests. So that barrier to the understanding or the acceptance of what this bill does has never really existed in the same way.

I think it is remarkable that this bill does embed one of the fundamental beliefs and values of Te Ao Māori: the notion of connectedness with the natural world, and human beings as part of it. It embeds that deeply into statute, into New Zealand law, in the same way that Te Urewera Act did. I think that as well as being significant and important as an empowerment of Te Ao Māori and Māori beliefs, it is also a very powerful assertion of tino rangatiratanga, the notion that we Māori, as others will, will determine our own futures, and that we should allow the non-human elements of our world—in this case, the river—to also have a hand and a say in asserting their own futures. This legislation, I believe, will lead directly, assuming a happy outcome in terms of implementation, to a restoration of the mauri of our largest river, a river that is one of the most significant features in this country, and in our cultural world, as well. I would be so bold as to quote Gerrard Albert, the negotiator of Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui, who said that “The point is to approximate at law what the river is to us in custom and kawa: a living tupuna, not an inanimate, lifeless resource to be used without regard to its mana.”

I think it is true to say that any person who sits alongside a river or sits quietly in a forest will hear the voice of that river, will hear the voice of that forest. In a more pragmatic sense, and a more practical sense, the river will require a human voice, and this legislation does allow for that: Te Pou Tupua, the human voice of the river. When we are making decisions—I shall call them the mundane but critically important decisions—about resource allocation, about land use, and about policy, the river will have a very powerful voice directly in those negotiations, in those discussions, and in that decision making. It will be a Māori voice and a Pākehā voice, and that is as it should be.

I think there is enormous potential in this not only to heal the harm that has been done but also to help New Zealanders who may not yet understand the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the importance of embedding Te Tiriti and its articles and its purpose deeply into all of our law, into all of our thinking, into all of our decision making. The great winner, I believe, in this legislation will be Te Awa o Whanganui. It will be the people of Whanganui. It will be all of us. It enhances the mana of this Parliament to pass legislation of this sort. There are no losers, I believe, in the passing of this legislation, and that is something one cannot always say about bills we put through this House.

So, finally, I will simply acknowledge—and others are far better qualified than I to name them, so I will not—those living and those who have passed who have fought long and hard to bring us to this point when we can appropriately recognise the mana of Te Awa o Whanganui. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā anō hoki tātou o Te Whare nei. I tautokongia ngā mihi i mihingia ki a koutou ngā iwi o Te Awa o Whanganui i taemai nei ki te whakarongo, ki te mātakitaki i ngā kōrero a ngā tāngata i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa ki roto o Te Whare nei. Māku e mea atu ki a koutou, kia aroha mai, aroha mai ki a au nā te mea, kua pau kē ngā kōrero i ngā tāngata i tū ake i mua i a au. Wēnā te mate i a mātou o Aotearoa Tuatahi, ahakoa he rōpū iti nei, i tēnei wā e noho ana mātou i tēnei taha o Te Whare ēngari mēnā ka kaha ana tā koutou aroha ki a mātou i te mārama o Hepetema e tū mai, ā, kei neke atu i a mātou ki tērā taha, kia ahatia? Ahakoa i pēnā, kei roto i a au ētahi o ngā kōrero e hiahia ana kia puta mai ki waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations once again to us of this House. I endorse the tributes accorded to you collectively, the people of the Whanganui River who have arrived to listen and to watch the contributions by the people who brought this matter into this House here. I will say to you collectively to empathise with me and to pity me because all that has to be said have been exhausted by those who got up before me. That is a problem we of New Zealand First have to contend with because we are only a small party, and at this time we are sitting on this side of the House, but if your empathy for us is really strong in the September that is coming, you might shift us to that side. So what can be done about that? Even if the situation is like that, I have some things within me that I want to air amongst you today.]

I just want to also add to the contributions made by my fellow colleagues on both sides of the House today, and say that we in New Zealand First will certainly support this bill because it is a unique one. It is unique in the sense that it creates what we call a special entity, and in this case it is Te Awa Tupua—the Whanganui River.

When I stand here at this time I am mindful of a number of people who have passed on who have been responsible for initiating this particular claim, this particular legislation, and in that regard, I want to acknowledge Te Atawhai Taiaroa.

Te Atawhai Taiaroa nā te mea, i te wā ko ia tētahi āpihā mō Te Rohe o Whanganui, mō Te Tari Māori, i a au tetahi o ngā āpiha i roto i Te Tari Māori i roto i Te Tai Tokerau, e kī nei te kōrero, i mahi tahi i ā māua. Nā reira, ka nui ngā mihi, me ērā atu o ngā mātua, ngā kuikuia i āwhina ki te kawe atu i tēnei kaupapa, kia tau te kerēme i te rā nei. Tū atu i tēnā, e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki Te Ariki mai i Te Whare o Tūwharetoa, nā reira ngā mihi ki a koe e Tumu! Tua atu i tēnā i a Gerard, i a Tihi me John, horekau e kite atu i a koe e te tuahine Tariana ēngari, mēnā kei konei koe, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou.

[Te Atawhai Taiaroa, because when she was a Māori Affairs official for the Whanganui region, I had one of these Māori Affairs officials in Northland. It could be said that we worked together. And so my accolades in regard to that are huge; plus for those other parents and those other elder womenfolk who helped to progress this matter along, and for the claim to land here on this day. Further to that, I want to acknowledge the paramount chief from the House of Tūwharetoa. So acknowledgments to you Tumu! Furthermore, I acknowledge Gerard, Tihi, and John, I cannot see you, sister colleague Tariana; if you are here, my acknowledgment to you collectively is a huge one.]

I just want to acknowledge that this bill is a recognition of the Crown’s obligation, which is that the iwi is able to exercise its right to its cultural obligations to the river, and this is what this bill allows the iwi o Whanganui. When I say “iwi”—when this case came before the Māori Affairs Committee, there was some discussion around the use of the word “iwi” but, in particular, the word “hapū”, which was used by Hekenui Whakarake before the royal commission of inquiry into the bed of the Whanganui River in 1950. I am not surprised that that tupuna alluded to the word “hapū”, and not “iwi”. Those of us who have studied anthropology—particularly New Zealand anthropological history—will know that the word “iwi” is not a Māori word. It was initiated by those early anthropologists just to be able to describe a number of hapū. So the Māori Affairs Committee—and I am not quite sure at the time whether that was the reason that we changed it, but it made it very easy for us to ensure that those respective hapū were, in fact, recognised as iwi as part of the legislation.

This bill also has the support of the local body. As part of the questioning that we had with the officials involved with this bill, we asked whether the payment of $430,000 to the Horizons Regional Council was to be considered part of the quantum. We were advised accordingly that, no, this was not part of the quantum, and it was to be paid by the Crown to the regional council as a contribution towards the cost of establishing Te Kōpuka and developing Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua—the river strategy. This payment is not part of the quantum payable to Whanganui iwi and is not counted as settlement redress, and I can say that the Māori Affairs Committee was certainly happy to hear that.

I also want to say that the bill will reverse what has been described as the disenfranchisement of the iwi of the river, and it recognises Te Awa Tupua as a legal person. There will be expectations of the collaborative and inclusive working together with all the other groups that are involved with the river, but I do ask the question: how will this new arrangement be affected by the proposed Resource Legislation Amendment Bill? I think that will be something that people will need to consider once the terms of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill are either confirmed or, certainly, debated in this House.

It also indicates a willingness on the part of Te Awa Tupua to work with all those having an interest in the river, and it is a settlement that is certainly unique. We have heard people say that there is interest in the arrangement that this bill brings, not only from other iwi but from other entities from around the world. So it certainly shows the willingness of not only the Crown but, more importantly, the iwi of Whanganui to accept a new way of administering and looking after their river.

I just want to conclude by saying a little whakataukī that I have taken licence to change a little bit. It is: Tuia Te Rangi i runga, tuia Te Papa ki raro, ka rere haere Te Awa o Whanganui ki waenganui, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Bind the sky above, thread the earth below, the Whanganui River flows in between and so, accolades and congratulations to you collectively, and my appreciation once again to us collectively.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, tēnā koe, ā, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau o Te Awa o Whanganui, nau mai, haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira.

[Thank you, thank you, and a huge acknowledgment to you collectively, the families of the Whanganui River. Welcome, come hither to the highly important day.]

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker, and kia ora to the whānau o Whanganui. I am really pleased to take a call in the final reading of Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill today. I am really privileged to do this, because it has been a long time coming, as my colleagues have said in their contributions in the House today. I do want to acknowledge our Tā Tumu te Heuheu and our Dame Tariana Turia. It is right and respectful to do that at the start of my speech, and I am really pleased to see you both sitting here listening to the contributions today.

My contribution is going to be brief. It always is on a third reading, mainly because the longer we talk, the longer you wait to actually have your bill given Royal assent. One of the kuia who I do want to acknowledge, who passed away, is Auntie Dardi Metekīngi. I knew her prior to going to Whanganui, to the district health board (DHB). She was the kaumātua—the kuia—for the Whanganui DHB at the time, and she passed away last year. I am going to read out today one of the contributions that she made towards the awa, because I thought it was rather poignant that she said these things before she passed. She considered the awa, and said: “The awa is a beautiful thing. You need the people. It lives with the people. It’s part of who you are, like a soul partner, sharing everything with you, and it gives it back to you. You don’t get strength from what you see but from what you believe. These things that nature has given us are our inheritance, are our whānau, and that tells us—that tells us—that the awa is an entity. It always has been. It never ever was never ever an entity for our whānau of the Whanganui awa.”

I just say for the people in this House here, our members of Parliament, that if ever you get a chance to be able to cross the Whanganui River, at any point of its journey from Hinengakau all the way down through to Tūpoho, and if you sit and you stop and you listen, I am sure that you will hear the voices of our tūpuna as they are singing that wonderful waiata that I have fallen in love with. The words are: e rere Te Awa Tupua [flow the Ancestral River].

And, with that, I commend the bill to the House. Congratulations. Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: James Shaw—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. He mihi aroha ki a koutou ngā uri o Te Awa o Whanganui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a loving acknowledgment to you, the relatives of the Whanganui River. Well done, congratulations, and accolades to you all.]

I am Pākehā. My ancestors are from Ōpōtiki, where Whakatōhea are tangata whenua. I asked for the honour to be allowed to speak to this bill. As Kaiārahi o Te Rōpū Kākāriki [Leader of the Green Party], I asked to be allowed to speak to this bill because it contains a gift for Te Ao Katoa [the entire world].

When I first ran for the leadership of the Green Party, just over 2 years ago, I was talking about the notion of legal personhood for natural features. Patrick Gower, a journalist, dismissed the idea as “human rights for snails”. So I hope he is listening to the debate this morning.

In my time I want to acknowledge and thank all of those who have made this possible. I would like to speak particularly to the recognition of legal personhood of Te Awa Whanganui. I want to recognise what a gift it is that you have given to all of us. I would like to start by acknowledging the people who have made all of this possible—the hapū and tūpuna rohe of Whanganui iwi. You are the tangata whenua and the kaitiaki of Te Awa Whanganui. I acknowledge everything that you have passed through, the sacrifices you have made, and the injustices you have suffered, which have brought us to this point. As Pākehā I honestly cannot even begin to imagine what it is that you have been through, on your journey to this point.

I do want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and the chair, Nuk Korako, for the work that they have done to bring us to this point; the officials; and the negotiators on both sides, who have done, I think, superb work in creating this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, the Minister responsible and also the Attorney-General of this country, for shepherding through a conservative Government what is actually a pretty radical legal notion—the idea that an environmental feature would have legal personhood. I asked him, in the middle of an election campaign—I said: “How did you get that through Cabinet? I would have thought there would be some resistance.” He said “Oh, it’s a very interesting legal notion.”, and simply wandered off. In other words, I do not think they knew what they were signing up to!

Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au—I am the river; the river is me. Obviously, this is such a deeply spiritual and cultural notion to Māori and to the people of the Whanganui River that this bill gives such recognition to. I would like to speak to what it means for an environmental feature in Aotearoa to have legal personhood. It means that the river itself has the right not to be polluted. It has the right not to be degraded. It has the right not to be overdrawn before it can replenish itself. And that is an extraordinary idea—that the river has that right, in and of itself, not to be polluted, not to be degraded, and not to be drawn down before it can replenish itself.

My colleague Pita Paraone asked what the interaction is between that idea and the Resource Management Act. As you will have the power of attorney, I urge you to use it because it is going to be fascinating to see how this idea of legal personhood actually plays out in New Zealand. That right not to be polluted or degraded I think should be tested. We want to see what that looks like, because that is going to be a great day.

In so doing, it sets a precedent for all of Aotearoa and also for te ao katoa. So I want to thank you. I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for what you have sacrificed and what you have been through to give this gift to all of us. This is not just for the people of Whanganui. This is a gift for all of Aotearoa and for the world, and I acknowledge you for that. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, e rau rangatira mā ko tēnei taku mihi ki a koutou katoa, ā, kia ora mai tātou.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is my acknowledgment to you all, esteemed ones and others of a hundredfold. My appreciation to us collectively.]

It is a pleasure to speak to this, the third reading of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. Today we have heard this bill called revolutionary and unique, and I want to call it extraordinary. I want to extend on the concept of personhood that the member James Shaw just talked about, because here today we recognise a river and its catchment as a legal entity, a legal person—Te Awa Tupua, under the framework of Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua.

Te Pā Auroa itself has seven components: Te Awa Tupua, Tupua te Kawa, Te Pou Tupua, Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua, Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua, Kia Matara Rawa, and Te Korotete o Te Awa Tupua. Some of these elements are governance and operational components, but it is Te Awa Tupua that joins the physical and the metaphysical, “an indivisible and living whole, comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating all its physical and meta-physical elements”—a legal person with all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person. This is such a breathtaking step that extra steps were required with the standard legislation-making process.

A regulatory impact statement is not typically required for a Treaty settlement process. Treaty settlements are generally exempt from the regulatory impact assessment requirements, unless the settlement affects existing regulatory requirements. The Te Awa Tupua framework is a novel redress, and its implementation will require altering decision making under existing regulatory frameworks, and so a regulatory impact statement was required.

The key legislation that the river interacts with, as a legal person, are the Resource Management Act, local government Acts, conservation legislation, fisheries and forests Acts, the Biosecurity Act, and the Land Act. In its full expression, then, when considering the river as a legal entity, a person, interactions with legislation must recognise and provide for the physical and metaphysical elements of the river and the values of iwi, or have particular regard for the physical and metaphysical elements of the river, and the values of iwi.

I want to further reflect for a moment on the recognition of the river as a legal person. Is this the first time a physical entity has been given these attributes—the attributes of personhood; legal attributes in New Zealand? No, it is not. It is actually the second such Act. On 27 July 2014 the Te Urewera Act recognised Te Urewera National Park as “a legal entity” with “all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” So this is not the first time, but it is the first time that a river has been given the legal status of a person, with all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.

With personhood comes the privilege of citizenship, and I contend here today that the Whanganui River now joins the Urewera lands as legally the oldest living people in New Zealand. The Latin concept of jus soli is still the fundamental concept of citizenship in America and indeed was in New Zealand until 2006. It guarantees birthright citizenship to the land where you draw your first breath and become a life. How appropriate, then, that the river be recognised as a person, that its first breath be here in Aotearoa, that its unalienable birthright be recognised under jus soli, which in Latin also translates into “the rights of the soil”—how appropriate.

In summary, iwi have been the voice that, together with the Crown here today, breathes legal life into the river as it before you has breathed life into your tūpuna and those still to come. I am privileged here today at this third reading to record this moment, to reflect on the physical and the metaphysical becoming one in law, and the opportunity for this iwi and hapū to move forward. I wish this iwi and this hapū well with their stewardship and commend this bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, kua riro māku nei te taha o Te Rōpū Reipa ki roto i tēnei te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire e whakakapi. E haere tonu ana ngā mihi ki a koe e te pāpā e Tūtehounuku Korako, i whakaritea nei i tō tātau huihuinga mai i te tīmatanga o te awatea tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Ko te manako, ka tau tonu mai ngā manaakitanga o Te Kaihanga ki runga i a tātau kua whakakāhui mai nei, nō reira e mihi atu ana au ki a koe.

E tangi tonu ana ahau ki ngā tini aituā o te wā nei kua wahaina mai e Te Minita me ngā mema o Te Whare nei i ngā aituā ki roto i ngā wiki, marama, tau kua pahure ake nei. E te whaea, e Rose, ka kite atu ahau i a koe ka hoki ngā mahara ki tō hoa, ki tōku pāpā ki a Morvin. E tangi tonu ana tēnei, tana tamaiti, ki a ia kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō. E te tuakana e Che, te kitenga atu i a koe me te whānau, ka hoki ngā mahara ki te pāpā ki a Tahupārae. Nā runga i tērā, ka kī atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare o Tahupārae i ōna rā. Kāti ake ki ngā aituā maha o te wā nei, kotahi tonu te kōrero, haere mai, haere. “Tupu mauri ora ki Te Whei ao, ki Te Ao Mārama, tiheiwā mauri ora.”

E aku rangatira ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki Te Ao Tūroa nei. Ki ngā tāngata kei roto i Te Rūma Nui o Te Whare Pāremata kīhai i whai tūru i te ahurewa mātakitaki, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou. Kāti, koutou e noho mai nā ki ngā pātū o tō tātau Whare i te rā nei, e mihi atu ana tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kei taku Ariki, kua kōrero mai nā e tōku tuakana a Kelvin i te kōrero a Tarakukū i a ia i runga i te kāinga o Tāpeka ki roto i Te Pēwhairangi. Tuituia mai te mana o tō tupuna a Te Iwikau ki ngā kōrero o tēnei Whare i te rā nei, kei taku Ariki, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou.

Huri tū atu ki a koe e Te Whare o Pōtatau. Ka kite atu ahau i a koe e te tuahine, ka rere atu ngā mihi nui ki a koe. I āta tauira mai tō iwi, tō Whare, i te mana o Te Awa o Waikato, ki tēnei te mana o Te Awa o Whanganui, e mihi atu nei, tēnā koutou.

Kua rangona ahau i te ingoa o Te Kahurangi a Tāriana. Kei tōku tuarā i tēnei wā, e Te Kahurangi, e te whāea, harikoa ana au kua whakawhiti mai koe ki tēnei taha o Te Whare! Kāti e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e te mema tawhito o tō tātau Whare, te kaikawe i ngā kaupapa o tō kāinga, otirā, o Te Motu whānui e mihi atu ana au ki a koe.

Huri tū atu ki te taha Pākehā e Te Koromatua o Wanganui e Hamish. I kite atu ahau i tō mata ki roto i Te Matatini, kua tae mai i te rā nei e mihi atu ana au ki a koe. Ko koe te whakatinanatanga o te nuinga, o te rahi o ngā kupu kai roto i tēnei pire. Kia kaua e riro mā Ngā Iwi me Ngā Hapū anahe te mana whakahaere o Te Awa; ko konā tonu Te Pākehā, tērā hoa o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i whakamanahia i te tau 1840. Kāti e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e Te Koromatua, tēnā koe.

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki te pire nei. E tika ana ki roto i te pānuitanga tuatoru me patu kutu te tangata nei, arohaehae i ngā kōrero kei roto, i ngā mea kaupapa kei roto i te pire nei. I roto i te rārangi tuatahi ka kite atu ahau i tētahi hapa kei roto i Te Reo Māori. Anei hoki: “Kua āta tirohia e Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori Te Pire a Te Awa Tupua”. E kīa nei, ko tōna tikanga, ko ngā kupu kei roto i te tūtohutanga, anā e ōrite ana ki te ingoa o te pire nei arā ko “Te Pire o Te Awa Tupua”. Kāti, ka waiho nā atu tērā whakaaro mā Te Whare hei whakatikatika ā tōna wā. Kāre e kore ka kitea whānuitia ki roto i te roanga ake o ngā kōrero, e aua. Ēngari ka waiho nā atu mā ngā āpiha hei whakatika.

Kāti, kua puta mai ētahi kōrero e pā ana ki ngā taniwha o Te Ture. Ko tētahi ko te RMA e kōrero nei e Te Motu whānui. E tika ana te kōrero a Te Ūpoko-hoa o Te Rōpū Kākāriki, me whakamātautauhia e tātau i te mana o tēnei pire, o tēnei ture, ki roto i ngā Kōti o Te Whenua nei. Ainī tātau ka kite mehemea, ka whai mana, ka whai huruhuru ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei pire. Tēnā pea mā tetahi atu taniwha, arā, ko te RMA, hei ngahoro, hei waipuke, hei tāmi ki raro i ngā kōrero o tēnei pire, ā taihoa ake nei tātau ka kite. Ā, taihoa ake nei ka kite!

Nō reira, ko te tangi atu ki Te Iwi e pae nei: kia mataara, kia mataara, kia mataara. Kai pōhēhē koutou, kua oti te haerenga o tēnei kaupapa—kāhore, kāhore, kāhore! Ko te hiahia e te tuakana e Che, ki roto i ngā tau maha kei mua i a tātau, ka rangona whānui i ngā waiata, i ngā haka e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa, mai i tōna orokohanga tae noa mai ki tēnei wā ā taihoa ake nei, ka kitea ki runga i te ātāmira o Te Matatini, anā, i whakakāhui ai i Te Ao Māori ki roto i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei; ka ora tonu ai te kōrero mō tēnei pire, ka ora tonu ai ngā manako o tēnei whakatupuranga mō ngā uri whakatupu e haere ake nei. Nō reira, koinā te wero nui kei mua i a tātau e Te Iwi Māori.

Kua āta tauira mai e koutou te mana o Te Awa o Whanganui. He wero tēnā ki ōku ake o Te Tai Tokerau! Kua kōrero atu Te Whare mō te mana o ngā puna waiora o Te Tai Tokerau, o Hokianga, o Taumārere. E Te Minita, e Te Hōnore Christopher Finlayson, ka waiho nā atu tēnā whakaaro māu. Ā tōna wā ka kōrero koe ki ngā rangatira o Ngāpuhi, o Te Tai Tokerau, ko te hiahia, kia kaua tātau e wareware ki Te Poutiriao o Rangiriri kei roto i a au o Taumārere ā taihoa ake nei. E Te Iwi kua tangi te pere!

Nō reira, hei whakarāpopoto ake, hei whakakapi ake i tēnei taha o Te Whare e kōrero ana mō tēnei pire e mihi atu ana au ki a koutou. Ko te manako, mā te wāhi ngaro koutou e tiaki i a koutou e hoki atu ana ki ngā wā kāinga puta noa. Kia mōhio mai koutou, i te ata nei i tīmata mātau ki Te Pākau o Heretaunga, mō te kaupapa o Ngā Hapū me Ngā Iwi o Te Wairoa. Ka mutu te pānuitanga tuatahi o taua pire, ka kake ake mātau i Te Maunga Tapu o Tongariro ki roto i Te Pito o Te Whenua. Ka tiro atu ki Te Pākau o Te Tai Hauāuru, ko Te Awa o Whanganui e tere atu nei, kāti ki a tātau e hui ngātahi ana, e ōku mātua, e ōku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Salutations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, now that it has been left for me to conclude the contribution by the Labour Party in this the third reading of this bill. Tributes continue to be made to you, father figure Tūtehounuku Korako, who organised our getting together and delivered a prayer in regard to the beginning of the day to this moment. The hope is that the acts of generosity of the Creator continue to descend upon us who have gathered here, and so I thank you.

I continue to grieve for the myriad of deaths of the present moment that have been brought here by the Minister and members of this House in regard to those that have occurred during the past weeks, months, and year. Auntie Rose, seeing you brings back memories, as well, of your husband and my fatherly figure, Morvin. This one, his boy, continues to mourn for him who has been lost to the void. Elder sibling Che, when I spotted you and the family, memories also went back to the fatherly figure Tahupārae. And, because of that, I say to you collectively, welcome, come hither to Tahupārae’s House during his days. Enough in terms of the myriads of deaths regarding this moment, there is only one thing to say to the dead, come forth and go! “Nurture a life force that is well in a natural and enlightened world, behold the breath of life!”

My esteemed ones, I will bring the statements of the contribution back to the enduring world here. I acknowledge you collectively, the people in the Grand Hall of Parliament who were not able to find a seat in the gallery. And so to those of you seated around the walls of our House today, I acknowledge and thank you collectively. My paramount chief, my senior member Kelvin there, mentioned a story about Tarakukū when he lived at the Tāpeka settlement in the Bay of Islands. Thread in the authority of your ancestor Te Iwikau into the debate in this House today, and so, to my high chief, I acknowledge you and you collectively, my appreciation.

And now I turn to you, the House of Pōtatau. I spot you sister cousin, and huge acknowledgments fly in your direction. Your tribe and House clearly demonstrated the validity of the Waikato River against that of the Whanganui River, for which I commend and congratulate you collectively.

I have heard of the name Dame Tariana. At this moment Dame, auntie, it is on my back and I am very delighted that you have crossed over to this side of the House! And so I really pay a tribute to you, the former member of our House, the bearer of policies relating to your home but at the same time of the nation at large, I thank you.

Turning to the English side, to you, the Mayor of Wanganui, Hamish, I saw your face at the National Māori Performing Arts Festival, and now that this day has arrived I am extending a greeting to you. You are the embodiment of a larger part and of a greater part of the words of this bill. Do not leave the administrative body of the river to just the tribes and subtribes alone; Europeans, that partner of the Treaty of Waitangi which was mandated in 1840, are still there. And so I acknowledge you, Mr Mayor, greetings.

I turn to this bill. In the third reading it is right that this person must kill lice, must critically discern comments and policy things inside this bill. I saw an error in the Māori language in the first line, and here it is: “Kua āta tirohia e Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori Te Pire a Te Awa Tupua”. According to its convention, these words must be the same as those in the recommendation, namely “Te Pire o Te Awa Tupua”. And so I will leave that thought for the House to address in due course. Without a doubt, it will be seen widely and have many comments, goodness knows! But I will leave that for the officials to deal with.

Well, some comments have emerged about the monsters relating to the Act. One such is the RMA, as it is referred to by the country at large. The comment by the co-leader of the Green Party is right, in that we must discuss the legality of this bill and act in the courts of this county. We will see in time whether the comments in this bill will be effective and secure outcomes. Perhaps some other monster RMA will undermine, flood, or smother the comments of this bill, we will see in time what will come of it. We will see in time!

Therefore, the cry to the tribe seated about: be awake, alert, and vigilant. Do not mistakenly assume that the journey of this proposal has ended—no, no, no, it has not! The desire, elder sibling Che, is that in the many years that are before us, songs and posture dances relating to this matter from its advent right up to this moment in time will be seen on the stage of the National Māori Performing Arts Festival, where Māoridom flocked to in the weeks just gone by; that the conversation for this bill and the aspirations of this generation and for those to come will remain alive! Therefore, that is the big challenge before us, the Māori people.

You have carefully demonstrated the integrity of the Whanganui River to us. That is a particular challenge indeed to mine of the Far North! The House has spoken about the life-giving waters of the Far North, Hokianga, and of Taumārere. To the Minister, the honourable Christopher Finlayson, I leave that thought for you to ponder over. In time you will speak to the leaders of Ngāpuhi and of the Far North. The hope is that we do not forget the spiritual guardian of Rangiriri within me of Taumārere River in the future.

People, the bell has rung! And so to summarise and to end the contribution of the House about the bill, I commend you collectively. The hope is that that unseen place will look after you as you return to your homes throughout. You need to be mindful of the fact that this morning we began with Te Pākau of Heretaunga in regard to the matter concerning the Wairoa tribes. After the first reading of that bill, we climbed the sacred mountain of Tongariro and into Te Pito of Te Whenua. We looked at Te Pākau of Te Tai Hauāuru and the river of Whanganui flowing by, and so to us assembled here together, my parents and leaders, salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all.]

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): This morning we have prepared a number of whakataukī, people have made a number of references, and here is another one: give him an inch and he will take a mile. It was suggested by my whip that no one would complain if I broke the convention and took the last speech, so here goes.

I wanted to take this opportunity to look up to the gallery, at these people from Whanganui and along the awa, and to acknowledge that it is a privilege to continue walking alongside you. Many people talk about members of Parliament who come to Parliament from their electorates and gradually fall under the influence of this place, forget where they have come from, and forget about the influence in respect of their electorates. My experience has been totally counter to that. I have found that the influence of you people, the influence of people from Whanganui, has had a greater and greater impact on me personally in my renaissance as a Pākehā New Zealander, and bears more influence on the House as that influence has grown.

One of the things that has become obvious to me, and it has been mentioned this morning, is that the river is fundamental to the health of Whanganui, and it is testament to our environment and the health of us as a nation. The health of our environment means that we will have a healthy nation. You cannot have an economy without an environment, particularly in this country, and we should never get that order back to front.

My friend Marama talked about talking to the river and not about the river. I think that what we have learnt from the theme of dealing with the environment and our own health is that we should never take things for granted. On a number of occasions I have canoed on the Whanganui River. Just when I have been taking the river for granted, it has given me a little flick and I have found myself getting wet. So I no longer do that, in spite of the greenery that I left on the right rock, to appease the taniwha. Nevertheless, that is the way it is. And so it is with people—in the same way, we should not take people for granted. People are not a commodity; people are to be respected, to be represented, to be advocated for, to be loved, and to be cared for. To neglect that is to incur peril upon ourselves.

I also want to remark on the influence that Whanganui people and Whanganuitanga has had on New Zealand as a whole. If we think back to Waitangi Day and the Rt Hon Bill English’s speech at Ōrākei, he thanked the people for the protest that they had made at what we call Bastion Point, the pou that those people put into the ground, and the influence that the protest movement has had over those intervening years. So it has been with Pākaitore. When we think about where we find ourselves today, I wonder whether we would be here without those experiences at Pākaitore. I am looking up to the gallery, at the crowd and the faces that I never knew previous to those events. I hear people saying—I hear Pākehā saying—that you have reinvented yourselves into stateswomen and statesmen, and I do not think that that is correct at all. I do not think you have changed a bit; I think that what has changed is us. I think that you have had an influence on us as New Zealanders, and the level of expectation that we now have as to the rights and wrongs of the kawa around tikanga.

My son is living in Canada. His mate is a schoolteacher, trying to teach these little Canucks how to play rugby—perish the thought. Part of their education is to learn about the All Blacks, obviously, but also incorporated into that is for the children to understand the haka. My son, who is Samoan, came to me to approach what the protocol is around him talking to Canadian kids about the haka. He never would have done any of that—it would not have entered his mind to even consult on whether or not it was appropriate for him to do it, and, if he was to do it, how he should teach it and who he should acknowledge, etc., etc. So it is with us. To think, Annette and Ken, not long ago we were all arguing about an “h”, and now it does not have an “f”-ing thing to do with Whanganui.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson—I have skited about our blood relationship since we discovered it, in the early days of our time here in Parliament—and the esteem that we all hold him in, and I know that you do too. Today we have heard a lot of talk about this very novel approach of according the river a legal personality. I am surprised that I have not seen more of you scratching your heads, just saying: “Oh yeah, at last.” Here is another whakataukī: back to the future. The fact is that the river has a personality and has always had a personality. Now it is Pākehā who are waking up to that realisation. It is no less sensational, though, that it was my cousin who got Pākehā to understand what you have known all along.

I also want to acknowledge those—I will not try naming them all, as they have been many times this morning—who have gone before, those people who have made their contributions known, and who are not acknowledged for that fact, and the legacy that they have left with us, not only with you as hapū and iwi and us as the people who live in the location, but with us as a nation of peoples.

The future health of the river will be self-evident, as will the future health of the people. So it will be with the strength of this resolution and the acknowledgment of the personality that is Te Awa Tupua. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.18 p.m.