Tuesday, 2 May 2017

TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2017

TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Akbar Khan, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who is present in the gallery.

Resignations

Rt Hon John Key, Helensville

the Rt Hon John Key

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11 p.m. on Friday, 14 April 2017.

Hon David Cunliffe, New Lynn

the Hon David Cunliffe

Mr SPEAKER: I also wish to advise that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11 p.m. on Sunday, 23 April 2017.

Hon Member: What about Maurice Williamson? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that is a letter I have not yet received.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Freshwater Management—Clean Water Package, Public Submissions, and Nitrogen Leaching

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Ki Te Minita mō Te Taiao: Ka tukua e ngā paerewa e whakaarohia akehia nei mō te pai ake o te wai i roto i te pūhera Wai Mā, te kaha kē atu, te iti kē iho rānei o te uru atu o te tūkinotanga ki roto i ō tātou awa wai, e ngā mea whakakapi?

[Do the proposed standards for water quality in the Clean Water package allow more pollution or less to enter our waterways than the ones they will replace?]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Less. The previous 2014 national policy statement sets a long-term goal of waterways being wadeable and annual median of less than 1,000 E. coli per 100 millilitres and no specific timetable for achieving that. The new proposed standard requires 90 percent of rivers and lakes to be swimmable with an annual median of less than 130, and sets a specific timetable of the year 2040. The Clean Water package will require that 1,000 kilometres of waterways per year be moved to a higher swimming standard each year to 2040. I am advised by regional councils that it will be challenging to achieve this rate of reduction in pollution, but the Government is determined it should be achieved.

Metiria Turei: When will the Minister publish the evidence that supports his claim that the Clean Water package standards will allow less pollution into our waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Clean Water package makes a plan in dropping the wadeability standard that provided for 1,000 E. coli per 100 millilitres to a swimmable standard that requires an annual median of 130 E. coli per 100 millilitres. There has been some further debate about the statistical measures and a further report is being produced by Mr Graham McBride from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). He has, unfortunately, been unwell and so there has been a delay in some of the further technical analysis around those statistical tests.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear: when will he publish the evidence that supports his claim? He made no statement at all as to the timing of that publication.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not agree with the member. The Minister then went on and explained that there was some further work being done and that the publication of it had been delayed because a man was unwell.

Paul Foster-Bell: Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. How do the proposed three categories of swimmable rivers in the Clean Water package compare with the European and the United States categories?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The proposed New Zealand system uses the terms “excellent”, “good”, and “fair”; the European system “excellent”, “good”, and “sufficient”. The statistical tests on E. coli levels are near identical, but the New Zealand proposed system is more cautious as it requires more samples. It also requires a median of less than 130 E. coli. And also the European system allows up to 15 percent of samples with elevated risk to be discarded. I am also advised that while the American system uses different measures, the risk profile is very similar to those under the grading system proposed for New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister is going to give the scientific community more time to submit on the standards, will he reopen submissions for the public once his evidence has been provided to them?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the further evidence and report by NIWA materially changes the proposals, then yes, I would be happy to reopen for submissions. In respect of the freshwater quality scientists, they asked for a very specific analysis to be done. As I said, the scientist who had promised to do that work became unwell and so I thought it was only fair that we allowed additional time for those water quality scientists who had specifically sought that information prior to their submissions being made.

Metiria Turei: How will the new standards address the findings of the recent Ministry for the Environment report that shows that an increase in nitrogen leaching from farms is a problem that cannot be fixed unless we reduce the number of animals on those farms?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In three ways: firstly, for the very first time the Government is proposing to nationally regulate the fencing of stock out of waterways from both rivers and from lakes, and that is important. Secondly, for the very first time, we are setting a nationally consistent measure and requiring it to be reported against. And, thirdly, the proposed changes to the national policy statement tighten up the legal requirement on regional councils to reduce and limit the amount of nitrogen getting into our waterways.

Metiria Turei: The Minister does understand, does he not, that fencing will not stop the leaching of nitrogen into the waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The fencing of waterways actually provides multiple benefits. It certainly will reduce the amount of E. coli getting into our waterways. It will also reduce the amount of sediment that carries nutrients like phosphorous, and it is also true that a major source of nitrates for our waterways is from animal urine, and animals not directly, effectively, peeing in our rivers and lakes will also help. However, the major constraint on nitrates is the fact that there are now 18 catchments across New Zealand where there are legally binding limits on nitrates; when we came to Government there were none.

Metiria Turei: Given that the Ministry for the Environment says that an increase in dairy farming means an increase in nitrogen, which means more pollution in our waterways, why will he not support a moratorium on new dairy farms to stop that pollution?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In those 18 catchments where councils have put a limit on nitrates, that does mean that there are farmers in parts of Southland, in Taupō, and in the Waikato where there cannot be dairy intensification. Where the Government disagrees with the Greens is that to blatantly apply a moratorium over all of New Zealand, including in areas where nitrates are not an issue, would in our view be a cost to those regional economies for no environmentally sound reason.

Metiria Turei: How can the public possibly trust him to do a good job of cleaning up our waterways when he has done such a terrible job of dealing with the housing crisis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to stand by my record that in my time as a Minister of housing, we have more than doubled the number of houses being built in New Zealand, and in respect of fresh water, I would simply make a challenge to the member to find a Government in the history of New Zealand that has made as many steps around improving New Zealand’s fresh water.

Public Infrastructure—Investment and Pūhoi to Warkworth Highway

2. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government committing to spend on infrastructure over the next 4 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Last week I announced the Government will allocate $11 billion in new capital spending over the next four Budgets, including $4 billion over the period 2017-18. This Government is investing heavily in new schools, hospitals, housing, roads, and railways, as well as additional new investment in the justice and defence sectors. New Zealand is experiencing strong economic growth, but to keep growing we have to continue investing in the infrastructure the country needs. We are able to do this because we have a strong economic plan that is delivering economic growth and ensuring the Government’s finances continue to grow, and, of course, we have returned to surplus.

Brett Hudson: How does this amount compare with capital expenditure over previous years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The capital commitment in Budget 2017 that I have talked about will represent the biggest addition to the Government’s capital stock in decades. In Budget 2016, for example, last year, we were forecasting around $3.6 billion in new capital spend between Budget 2017 and Budget 2020, compared with the $11 billion that was announced last week. In fact, if you add the Government’s budgeted new capital investment together with the investment already being made through baselines and through the National Land Transport Fund, the total is around $23 billion over the next 4 financial years, or an average of nearly $6 billion per year.

Brett Hudson: How will New Zealanders benefit from this additional investment in infrastructure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Kiwi families will see the benefits in terms of the facilities and services they receive for their kids to go to school, treatment in local hospitals, and, of course, the transport to get to work each day. In some parts of Auckland already you can see a massive amount of activity occurring, and I understand the frustration that comes from an epidemic of road cones, but that is a strong sign of how we are building for further growth. Change is already happening, with the recent opening of the Kapiti Expressway here in Wellington, the imminent opening of the $1.6 billion Waterview Connection, the widening of the southern corridor in Auckland, the airport motorway developments, and, of course, the Mount Roskill motorway and the Northwestern Motorway widenings, as well as the construction of the City Rail Link tunnel. These investments will go towards providing the core infrastructure needed to build homes for our growing population.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the public is to believe anything that this Minister says, can he confirm that after 8 years, not 1 metre of the Pūhoi to Warkworth superhighway has been built; that since he made the promise in the Northland by-election, not 1 metre of the Wellsford to Warkworth highway has been built; and that of his 10 two-lane bridges, nothing has started and seven have gone missing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member is criticising my word against his I would remind him that it is he who has got the record of 40 years in New Zealand’s politics, with not a massive amount of consistency.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the interests of being terse and accurate I kept it very simple. I just want confirmation: yes or no?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member knows Speakers’ rulings better than that—he cannot demand a yes or no answer. Does the Minister want to complete his answer?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was saying, the member’s record of consistency over 40 years leaves something to be desired, but I am happy to help him—I am happy to help him—because this Government is investing in the highway in Pūhoi to Warkworth, and, in fact, has a great plan for Warkworth to Wellsford. It is currently investing—for the member’s benefit—in four of the 10 bridges in Northland. It is investing in the State highway linking between Whangarei and the airport. It is investing in a whole bunch of other roads in Northland. If the member would like to go on a field trip to his Northland electorate I suggest we get Mr Bridges to take him for a look around.

Brett Hudson: What funding tools is the Government considering to encourage additional investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the key things the Government infrastructure spending can achieve is bringing together central government, local government, and the private sector to enhance infrastructure spending more generally. Not all infrastructure needs to be paid for by taxpayers. To encourage this coming together we are intending to further extend the use of public-private partnerships. We, of course, have the Housing Infrastructure Fund, which will help encourage joint ventures between central and local government. Also, we intend to bring in more private investors. We will have more to say about that in the months ahead.

Marama Fox: How will the Minister respond to Ella Te Kani, Tina Karaitiana, and Nikki Searancke, of Ngati Porou, who run their whānau trust growing forests, who tell me they cannot get the logs out because the public road needed to do so is impassable and there is no plan to fix it, creating a net loss to them of $3 million.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister of Transport tells me that there is work planned in that particular area of Ngati Porou’s territory. I am going to suggest to the member that she takes that up with the Minister of Transport, who is probably keen to visit Ngati Porou territory as well.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Drift Re-entry

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Given his predecessor told the Pike River families, “I’m here to give you absolute reassurance we’re committed to getting the boys out, and nothing’s going to change that”, when, if ever, will he be announcing the re-entry of the drift?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): We have already announced that the Government has asked Solid Energy to explore options for an unmanned entry of the Pike River drift. This announcement was made on 15 February, following a meeting with representatives of the Pike River families. That work is currently under way, and I understand it is progressing well.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm New Zealand Mines Rescue’s statement that people had been working up to 300 metres into the drift in 2011?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That has been public knowledge since around 2011 or 2012, when the activities related to testing the feasibility of entering the mine, and then later on for putting seals in place to seal off what is probably New Zealand’s most dangerous workplace. So it is well known that there were people up to 300 metres in the mine, but certainly none where the media yesterday alleged there were.

Andrew Little: Why has the Government claimed that people going into the drift face the risk of “drowning, explosion, the roof caving in”, when people have safely been working hundreds of metres inside the drift and a robot has safely gone 1,500 metres inside the drift?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a matter of what the Government says; it is a matter of the assessment of whether or not a safe manned entry can be made up the drift and into the body of the mine. The work that was done with the agreement and cooperation of the families identified, I think, some 600 risks that needed to be mitigated. Those who would be responsible for the workplace and held responsible for any accident that occurred in it—that is, the board of Solid Energy—decided that it was too risky.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that only a few hundred metres beyond where the robot reached there is an electric switching station that likely contains evidence of the cause of the explosions, which could explain those 29 deaths and give justice to the families?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is any amount of speculation about different aspects of the mine and the possibilities of re-entering it, but the member should be careful about making promises to the families. I do not know how those promises could be credible to the Pike River families when he could not keep a promise to Willie Jackson. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Given that Harold Gibbons, a Mines Rescue member who has been at the drift, says that he and others are willing to go in again, what does the Prime Minister think he knows that the experts on the ground do not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Neither those experts nor I have the capacity or legal responsibility for making that decision. Workplace safety, as that member should know better than most—because in his role with the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) after the Pike River disaster he was a strong advocate of precisely the changes to the law that mean that they cannot volunteer to go into the workplace and a politician cannot compel anyone to go into it. I would have thought that that member, who may have represented some of the 29 dead men, would know better than most the risks of that workplace.

Andrew Little: Can he name another workplace disaster that has killed so many people where evidence has not been recovered, where the cause has never been finally established, and where no responsible parties have faced justice—does he want New Zealand to know the truth or not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I do not believe there is any other workplace disaster of the nature of the Pike River disaster—as the member has outlined—and that is one reason why it is so difficult for the families, because they are carrying a burden of grief as well as many unanswered questions. But in my discussions with them, I felt that they were people who understood that putting further lives at risk or breaching New Zealand’s law to try to do that was probably not the best way to bring those issues to a close.

Transport Infrastructure—Kaikōura

4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made recently regarding the Government’s commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government is committed to restoring the pre-earthquake transport links to Kaikōura and its surrounding communities. To make sure this work continues at pace, last week I announced that Budget 2017 will provide up to $812 million to reinstate State Highway 1 between Picton and Christchurch. The Transport Agency is also considering additional improvements to this stretch of highway, which could see a further investment of up to $240 million from the National Land Transport Fund. Confirmation of funding through Budget 2017 ensures that every effort continues to be made to ensure we have this critical stretch of State highway reopened before the end of the year.

Stuart Smith: What other announcements as part of Budget 2017 has he made regarding the Government’s commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Last week I was also pleased to announce as part of Budget 2017 that we would also make funding available for KiwiRail to continue reinstatement work to its line while its insurance claim is finalised. More than $45 million of work has already been completed since last November’s earthquake, including clearing slips and obstructions, undertaking geotechnical assessments, and reinstating rail track. The total cost of reinstating the road and rail corridors is now estimated to be between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion, which reflects damage and destruction of this scale. The Government continues to stand with those affected by the November earthquake, and funding in Budget 2017 demonstrates our very real commitment to getting these communities moving again.

Marama Fox: When can we expect an announcement from the Minister to reinstate the rail line between Gisborne and Wairoa with KiwiRail?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a fair way from the original question with regard to the Kaikōura earthquake. I do not think I can allow that.

State and Social Housing—Temporary Unsupervised Care of Children

5. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Children: When was she first notified that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki, or its predecessor, CYF, were placing children and younger persons in a hotel or motel for short-term care without a supervisor, and what was her first action, if any?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): To the best of my knowledge it was on 21 April this year. My first action was to seek assurances that this decision is made with the best interests and the well-being of the young person as the paramount concern, and that measures were put in place to ensure their safety and the safety of others. But the practice of using motel-type accommodation for short-term care has occurred for many years. I refer the member to the answer to written question No. 13281 in 2006, in which the then Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Ruth Dyson, told me: “… I can advise that hostel and motel accommodation is used only in exceptional circumstances.” In addition, sometimes in exceptional situations the decision is made that it is not appropriate to have someone accompany the young person at all times.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she asked for regular reporting on children in hotels, motels, and police cells, as past Ministers, like those quoted, did; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not need to ask; I get regular reports.

Jacinda Ardern: In that case, how many times has she been notified by Oranga Tamariki, and previously Child, Youth and Family (CYF), that children and young people have been placed in a hotel or motel because of a lack of alternatives, and in some cases without supervision, in the last 12 months?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: First of all, if I unpick that question the member is making an assumption that children or young persons are placed in a motel or hotel or hostel because there is a lack of availability of beds. That is not the case.

Aupito William Sio: That’s not an assumption. That’s what’s happening.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is an assumption, because, as I said in my answer to the primary question, the first action I took was to ensure that the well-being and best interests of the young person were the primary concern. That always has to be the primary concern.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the member to repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.

Jacinda Ardern: How many times has she been notified by Oranga Tamariki, and previously CYF, that children and young people have been placed in a hotel or motel, in some cases without supervision, in the last 12 months?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have advised that member already, the use of temporary accommodation is managed by a person’s allocated social worker and their supervisor, based on the best interests and well-being of the young person, and the information is held on individual records. So it is not centrally collated, so I do not have an exact number of how many times they have been used for short-term accommodation. This, again, is not new, and I can refer the member back to answers to written questions from the Hon Ruth Dyson in 2006 and in 2007, saying exactly the same as I have answered to that member.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table answers to written questions from the Hon Ruth Dyson proving that she gave—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. That information is already available to all members if they want it.

Jacinda Ardern: How can she claim that children and young people are being left in hotel rooms under “exceptional circumstances” and that it is “a temporary measure”, when she cannot tell the House how often it has happened, despite claiming she receives reports on it?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not going to comment in the House on individual cases, but I can assure the member that when decisions are made about where to place a young person, their safety and their best interests are the top priority. There may be situations where the social worker makes the decision that direct supervision is not in the best interests of a young person, and neither I as the Minister nor that member are in a position to criticise the actions and decisions of social workers, who are aware of all the facts and the complex needs of young people.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she included in her bill currently before Parliament a new provision allowing children and young people to be held in prison cells, over and above emergency situations, because she has failed to address shortages in the system that have been raised with her time and time again, despite her complete lack of transparency to this House?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There is no provision in the new bill for the proposal that the member puts, but I repeat again—well, I say—we have opened another 10 beds already in youth residences, and the new ministry is focused on developing community-based responses for these young people. But there will still be times when it is in the best interests of a young person to be placed somewhere different from where that member thinks they should—with the attention that they should all have.

Care and Support Workers—Wages

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 55,000 care and support workers will share in the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced on 18 April 2017?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, indeed. This agreement is the result of complex and detailed negotiations over nearly 2 years. From 1 July this dedicated and predominately female workforce, most of whom are on or around the minimum wage, will receive a pay rise of between around 15 and 50 percent, depending on their qualifications and/or experience. For the 20,000 workers currently on the minimum wage, it means they will move to at least $19 per hour—a 21 percent pay rise. For a full-time worker, this means they will be taking home around an extra $106 a week, which is $5,500 a year in the hand. This will make a massive difference to some of the hardest-working, deserving, and lowest-paid people in the country and their families.

Melissa Lee: What are the next major steps to be taken in order to deliver this huge increase in payments to these 55,000 workers?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This afternoon I am meeting with the unions and relevant parties in my office to sign the settlement agreement. The next priority is to ensure that the 55,000 workers are getting the money in their pay packets from 1 July. Implementation of the settlement is complex, as there are approximately 1,000 providers and 4,000 contracts that will need to be amended. I will also be introducing legislation to Parliament shortly, and I look forward to broad support for this historic settlement.

Auckland—Commentary

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Dominion Post editorial that his Government has “singularly failed to answer the pressures of Auckland”; if not, why does he think they would write this?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): No, I do not agree with the Dominion Post’s take on the Government’s pre-Budget announcement. I would also disagree with its take on the Government’s commitment to infrastructure over the last 9 years. The former Minister of Finance and current Prime Minister invested heavily in infrastructure over that period. I also note that the editorial writer was having a bad day, because they confused net debt with gross debt in their criticism of the Government’s debt targets and had to change the editorial after they had finished. As to the motives for why they would write these things, I can only assume that perhaps they did not have enough cups of coffee before they started writing.

Grant Robertson: Can he now answer the question posed in the editorial as to why the Government stalled for years over a critical rail line—the City Rail Link (CRL)?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, the Government did not stall for years; the Government has made billions—

Grant Robertson: Oh—delayed.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, it brought it forward. When we came into Government, that CRL was going to happen much later than it is happening even now. So that is weird. Also, we were probably busy electrifying the whole commuter rail network in Auckland at the time. We were possibly busy organising a whole bunch of new electric trains. We completely modernised the fleet by funding Auckland Council to do so. And we were probably busy finishing off the double tracking of the Western Line in Auckland, which the previous Government left undone when it left office.

Grant Robertson: When the editorial points out that his Government “failed to act on the … smouldering housing crisis”, what responsibility does he take for there being a shortage of 40,000 houses in Auckland, which has grown year on year on his Government’s watch?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I have got to say that there is something slightly strange about a Wellingtonian reading a Wellington newspaper to describe to an Aucklander what is actually going on in Auckland. I suspect that Mr Robertson should get up to Auckland and go and have a look at all the construction that is going on in the roading network, in the rail network, and in the housing area—with record levels of construction—and then get some new talking points and come back to the House.

Grant Robertson: Does he think his answers today go to prove the editorial’s comment that Mr Joyce is “full of bluster” about the country’s economic strength and the further points that productivity and wealth are still mired far below those of other countries that were once our peers; and could it be that because we have got the fourth-lowest productivity in the world, GDP per capita has hovered around 1 percent for years and he is still in denial about that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: So said the “Chief Blusterer of the Opposition”. Mr Robertson is known for his bluster; the rest of us are known for getting the work done. This Government is overseeing one of the fastest economic growth rates of the OECD right now. We were the fifth fastest-growing economy in the OECD last year. I would just say to the member that before he starts treating the Dominion Post editorial as gospel, he should go back and look at the printed version, and look at the errors they made about comparing net debt and gross debt, and then go and find another source for his knowledge of Auckland.

Grant Robertson: Can he understand why editorial writers might write this kind of piece, because he is trying to take credit for solving a problem that he has created by re-announcing infrastructure funding to address his own infrastructure deficit?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is simply wrong. In terms of infrastructure spend, what was announced last week is the largest addition to the New Zealand Government’s capital stock, possibly ever—certainly for a long time. When the member’s party was last in Government, which I know was a long time ago, it would spend a few hundred million on new capital each year. This Government has committed to $11 billion over the next four Budgets. The New Zealand public knows that this is the infrastructure Government.

Building and Construction Industry—Reports and Building Consents

8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: How do the latest reports on the level of building activity in Auckland and nationwide for the month, quarter, and year compare with 2016?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Building activity is booming, with the latest March figures showing new records in both residential and commercial activity in Auckland, as well as nationwide. In March 2017, 20 percent more homes were consented than in March 2016, both in Auckland and nationally. The quarterly and annual figures also showed strong growth. There were 30,626 new homes consented in the last year, which is the highest in 12 years. That is up 2,837 on the previous year, that year was up 2,700 on the previous year, and that year was up 2,600 on the year before that. This is the sixth straight year of strong growth in home construction—the longest and strongest ever.

Andrew Bayly: What do the latest reports have to say about the level of investment in building activity?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The level of investment in March, at $2 billion, was the first time ever that $2 billion had been scored in any month since records began, and that includes in both real and inflation-adjusted terms. The level of investment for the year had a record of $19.5 billion, made up of $12.7 billion in residential work and $6.8 billion in commercial and infrastructure work. Never has New Zealand had the combination of record investment in residential, commercial, and infrastructure work all at the same time.

David Seymour: Are not the real facts that the recent 8-year rise in output came off the back of a 40-year low in home consenting, that the rate of home building per capita has halved since the 1970s, and that high prices are not a sign of greater productivity?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is absolutely right that the end of the 2008 and the first month of 2009 was the lowest level of new home construction since records began, and that shows the mess that was left at the time Labour left Government. In terms of the scale of build, the level of investment right now is the highest ever in real terms, and I would caution the member against the last peak in 2004, which was only residential activity—very little activity in commercial and infrastructure work. Furthermore, I would remind the member that if the comparison is 2004, that was the worst year of leaky home construction, and this Government is determined to get quality as well as quantity.

David Seymour: Would the Minister’s answer have been different if the point of comparison was not 2004 but actually 1974?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would urge the member to look at the history in 1974, when the Government of the day resulted in a huge economic dislocation that actually contributed to great hardship in New Zealand in the late 1970s and 1980s. This Government does not want a repeat of the economic circumstances of the mid-1970s, which were a disaster for this country.

Andrew Bayly: What do the latest reports say about where this building activity is occurring?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The latest reports show that strong building activity is not just across residential, commercial, and infrastructure, but also incredibly spread across New Zealand. So if we take commercial building activity in Auckland over the last year, it is up 20 percent, in Gisborne it is up 35 percent, in the West Coast it is up 100 percent, in Otago it is up 60 percent, and in my home community of Nelson it is up 200 percent. This just reinforces that commercial building activity across New Zealand reflects the high level of confidence that there is in the New Zealand economy.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Drift Re-entry and Video Footage

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by my statements; and as vigorously as is required to win an argument, particularly with that member, but it is getting easier and easier.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that re-entering the Pike River mine was “not about politics; it’s about safety.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, because that statement accords with the legislation passed by this Parliament. For a politician to make a decision to instruct or force someone to enter that mine would be contrary to the law.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that New Zealand Mines Rescue conducted a thorough risk assessment on re-entry into the Pike River mine, which considered that the risks from all hazards could be controlled to a tolerable and acceptable level, including the risks of explosion and fire?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware it has done some kind of an assessment, but, really, the only assessment that matters is the assessment of the decision maker—that is, the people who, under the law, are personally responsible for the workplace and responsible for the safety of anyone who goes in there. The assessment of that group of people, who would make the decision and take responsibility for any consequences, including pretty severe liability and punishment under the law, is that those risks are too difficult to mitigate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that the Queensland Mines Rescue Service also concluded a thorough risk assessment on re-entry into the Pike River mine—in this document—which also concluded that the residual risks from hazards in Pike River could be controlled to acceptable levels of risk, which also included explosion and fire?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have read a whole lot of material, and I cannot comment on that in particular. But I just ask the member to consider this. It turned out to be a very dangerous workplace before it had exploded and the risks were fully understood; just imagine how dangerous a workplace it is now, after multiple explosions, geological fracturing, and uncertainty about how those risks can be managed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If New Zealand Mines Rescue and the Queensland Mines Rescue Service have both conducted thorough risk assessments on Pike River, why is he in this House talking bulldust?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, the assessment that has been the most thorough has been the one done, subsequent to agreement with the families, by Solid Energy. If the member can cast his mind back, the Government agreed to the transfer of the mine to Solid Energy, at the wishes of the families, so that this assessment could be done. It was done by people who would have to make the decision, and they came to the conclusion that it was unsafe for manned entry. So the Government has focused—with the families, having met them in January—on unmanned entry, to meet at least some of their requirements to gather more evidence in order to better understand the cause, knowing full well that such an exercise will not meet all of the families’ requirements. They have suffered the grief of loss of their loved ones and unanswered questions, and this next project goes some way to meeting their requirements.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that these reports, paid for, and as expensive as they were, utterly and totally contradict his position that it is not safe to re-enter Pike River mine, which begs the question: why he is in this House talking bulldust again?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, it is not fundamentally a matter of my position or even the member’s position; it is a matter of the position of those under the law who are responsible for their workplace and for the safety of anyone who goes in it. The member may not be aware but every day New Zealanders who are painting houses, who are putting boxes on shelves, and who are operating machinery on factory floors deal with our health and safety legislation, and they would all understand the responsibilities much better than the member does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has it taken over 6 years for the Pike River families, the royal commission of inquiry, a parliamentary select committee, and the public to view the footage from March 2011, when he said yesterday: “There’s no reason why the families couldn’t see it.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will, I think, now be aware, it has not been 6 years; in fact, as early as 2011 there were discussions between the police and the families about the content of the videos. The videos were all turned over to the royal commission, which did whatever it did with them, but we understand they were taken into account and they were also viewed by those who did the safety assessment. But of course it would be much better if the families had the opportunity—having had it back in 2011 and 2012, having had their legal representative at the commission of inquiry the whole time with the opportunity to view all the video—to view it all again. The police are preparing to release all of the videos again to the families by the end of the week, and I think the sooner they see the whole lot, the better.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he reject the claim that this is a cover-up, when the Pike River families, the Pike River royal commission of inquiry, and a parliamentary select committee never viewed the video footage that he is talking about now—also confirmed by the families’ QC; what do you call a person who makes a statement that they have seen it when all these people say they have never been shown it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may want to take up the issue with the police, but it is quite clear from police statements that families saw the videos. In fact, I understand there was a discussion precisely about the smoking robot. It does not mean that all of the families saw them and it does not mean that whoever saw them remembers seeing them—because it is 5 or 6 years ago. That is why that is a fairly pointless argument. The fact is that they have been available: anyone who was required to make a decision, including a royal commission, has had the videos available. They will be available again by the end of the week; there is no cover-up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has used his full allocation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, then, point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Mines Rescue Service report in respect of Pike River, and also the Queensland Mines Rescue Service risk assessment template as well—all of which rebut what the Prime Minister is saying.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is completely unnecessary. I will assume in the member seeking leave that they are not available publicly—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not available.

Mr SPEAKER: So the member is seeking leave to table those two mine rescue reports. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is not.

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

Roading, Auckland—Western Ring Route and Waterview Tunnel

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: Why has the completion of the $2.4 billion western ring route been delayed, and when can Aucklanders expect the new motorway to be open?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The $2.4 billion western ring route completion has not been delayed and remains on track for full completion by the end of 2019. I assume, though, the member is talking specifically about the Waterview tunnels, which are nearing completion. Important pre-opening testing identified some minor faults with some of the tunnels’ equipment, and now these have substantially been fixed and are being tested. The Transport Agency is on track to open the tunnels within the next 2 months, which is a minor delay in the context of what is a several-year, multibillion dollar project.

Phil Twyford: Is it true that traffic lights are being put on the motorway because the tunnels the Government has built have inadequate ventilation for the number of cars expected to use them?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, those lights are about managing traffic, and I can tell the member, and he will see it in the very near future, that there will be so many people wanting to go in and see that tunnel that the streamlined use of those lights, the judicious use of them, will be the right thing. So I will repeat that: the member’s claim, an old wives’ tale, is absolutely wrong.

Phil Twyford: Does he think it is OK that a $2.4 billion project, one of his roads of national significance, now needs traffic lights on the motorway, which will lead to queues of traffic and even longer journey times for Aucklanders?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the member is being silly, and if he is angling for an invite to the opening, he is going about it the wrong way. This is a $2.4 billion project that will be a game-changer for Auckland. People will get to see and use the tunnels very shortly, and I think they will be impressed by what this means—what has been the biggest infrastructural project to date that this country has seen.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that transport officials are increasingly worried about the likely traffic volumes when the tunnel is open and the risk that they will actually make the gridlock worse?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, they are not at all worried. What is true, though, is that they will be popular in the initial days, because literally millions of New Zealanders will want to use it. It is, though, going to be over time a game-changer for the Auckland Regional Transport Network. We know this is an important issue for it, and that is why we have invested and we have worked hard to do projects such as this in our biggest city.

Phil Twyford: Why did his Government not include a grade separated rapid transit busway beside the Northwestern Motorway, as part of the western ring route project, given that Auckland Transport says that it needs to be built within a decade, meaning that much of the new motorway that has just been built will have to be dug up within a few years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What the member is saying is absolutely wrong. I think he will find the tunnel will take buses and there will be buses in it. But what is also true, when the member tries to paint this Government as anti - public transport, is that we have invested more than any Government in Auckland, in its transportation, in the electrification of rail, and in multiple public transport projects around Auckland, and there is more to come.

Conservation Land—Logging of Wind-blown Trees

11. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Is it Government policy to increase the logging of native forests on West Coast conservation land?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): No.

Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister been asked by Sustainable Forest Products or any other company to change the law to allow further logging of wind-blown trees or of standing trees on conservation land?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No.

Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with the proposal in the Government’s Tai Poutini West Coast Growth Study opportunities report to expand native forests logging on public conservation land by allowing logging after any major weather event or at the Minister’s discretion?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is in the plan, and more will be revealed when the development plan is released in a few months’ time. But there are no plans at this time to exercise either of those options.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a straight yes/no question—whether she agreed with the proposal.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but the member cannot ask for a straight yes or no answer. The member cannot insist on that at all. The member can carry on with further supplementary questions.

Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that logging wind-blown trees robs a forest of nutrients that the trees need to grow, and removes habitat for everything from fungi to insects?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No, I do not agree with that. I believe that Cyclone Ita, which was a once-in-a-generation storm that felled 20,000 hectares of trees, and a further 200,000 hectares were damaged—at that time, when the legislation was proposed and went through under my predecessor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, it was entirely appropriate, to, rather than let everything rot and waste, allow some logging to be conducted. That is why we passed that legislation, which will come to an end in 2019.

Housing, Christchurch—Construction of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - Commissioned Homes

12. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she agree that the first homes in the East Frame will be completed 5 months ahead of schedule?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Yes, and I have been assured by both the chief executive of Ōtākaro and the chief executive of Fletcher Living that the first 20 homes in the East Frame will be completed ahead of schedule.

Dr Megan Woods: How can the first stage be 5 months ahead of schedule when, according to the original cost-sharing agreement, the first stage should have been completed in 2015, and even the time line in John Key’s announcement of the delayed project should see residents moving in this month and not waiting on a construction deadline a year from now?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I think the member is confusing the proposed construction dates with those finalised in the contract. The development agreement with Fletcher’s was signed in December 2015, and the completion date for the first homes was October 2018. They will now be completed in May 2018.

Dr Megan Woods: Is it correct that not only is the first stage a year behind schedule but her predecessor admitted last week that the two other lots are expected to be delayed by 4 months and 12 months—and, 6 years after the earthquakes, is it not time for her Government to do better?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, I have been advised that the number of homes in the plans of the next two super-lots have increased, which means the construction of those lots will take slightly longer. But we still expect that those 200 homes from these lots will be constructed by the middle of 2019.

Dr Megan Woods: How many of the 13 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - led (CERA-led) anchor projects have been delivered to the date set out in the original cost-sharing agreement?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: We are working through the anchor projects. The time lines are publicly announced, and we will deliver those.

Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just—[Interruption] Order! Can I just invite the member to ask the question again.

Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many of the 13 CERA-led anchor projects have been delivered to the date set out in the original cost-sharing agreement?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: What I can tell you is three of the projects—the oval, the parts of the Avon/Ōtākaro River, and also the bus exchange—are complete and operating well, and if you would like to put that question in writing, I will give you the full details.

Questions to Members

Pike River Mine Disaster—Video Footage

1. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Does she intend to call for further submissions on the petition of Dame Fiona Kidman before it is reported back to the House, in light of the recently released footage shot inside the drift of the Pike River mine?

MELISSA LEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): It is my view that there is nothing in the video footage that changes the risk assessment that a manned re-entry deep into the drift is too risky. Having said that, the ultimate decision on whether the committee seeks a further submission is a matter for the committee, and the member can actually raise that in committee.

Clare Curran: Does the existence of footage showing that people can enter the mine drift safely not fundamentally change the case for re-entry, meaning submitters should be allowed the opportunity to provide further submissions and the committee time to consider additional evidence?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a matter of select committee business. It is far wide of the field of what she should be asking as a question to another member.

Chris Hipkins: This is exactly what questions to presiding officers should be allowed to do. It holds presiding officers accountable for the decisions they make, and the supplementary question related directly to the answer the presiding officer of that committee gave to the question. If she had wanted to narrow the scope for supplementary questions, she could have given a narrower answer to the original question as lodged. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think, on balance, the points made by the Hon Simon Bridges are right. It was a very convoluted question, and certainly not a straightforward one. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question, but before she starts, she wants to be fully conversant with Speaker’s ruling 178/1. If I then, after hearing the question again, decide that it is beyond the responsibility of the chairperson of the committee, I will not hesitate to rule the question out. We will give it one more go.

Clare Curran: Given the answer that the chair of the select committee just gave to the House on her opinion of the footage, does the existence of such footage not fundamentally change the case for a re-entry, meaning submitters should be allowed to submit to a parliamentary select committee and further submissions by the committee be heard?

Mr SPEAKER: No. I have listened very carefully again, and that question now certainly goes beyond the responsibility of the chairperson as the chairperson of the committee to answer that question.

Urgent Debates Declined

Pike River Mine Disaster—Video Footage

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the emergence of video footage from inside the Pike River mine. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. There must be a distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to debate. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 207/2. There is no ministerial responsibility for the release of the footage from inside the mine, and that is the case that the Rt Winston Peters has sought to debate. Therefore, the application is declined.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Drift Re-entry and Video Footage

Mr SPEAKER: I have further received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the decision not to re-enter the Pike River mine after the release of video footage from inside the mine. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. Again, I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 207/2. Several previous Speakers have ruled that the absence of an action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers’ ruling 212/2. The Prime Minister has stated that the emergence of the footage does not change the Government’s decision on re-entering the mine. No new Government policy or action has been announced. Therefore, that application is also declined.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This is the debate on the annual reviews of departments, Offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours. Members, please bear with me as I indicate to the Committee the rulings of the Business Committee.

The Business Committee has determined that the debate is to be divided into 10 separate debates, covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2015-16. The Business Committee has further determined that eight 5-minute calls per sector will be allocated to committee chairs, Ministers, and parties as follows: the committee chairperson, one call; the Minister, three calls; the Labour Party, two calls; the Green Party, one call; and New Zealand First Party, one call. In addition, there are 40 5-minute supplementary calls that may be taken by parties as they see fit during the 10 sector debates. The supplementary calls have been allocated as follows: National, 14; Labour, 13; the Greens, six; New Zealand First, five; the Māori Party, one; and ACT, one.

Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector in order to set out the major findings of their committee. At the end of each debate, the question will be put that the committee reports relevant to the sector be noted. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members, depending on parties’ use of their allocation of supplementary calls. However, the debate expires after 10 hours.

I understand that the annual review debate will be held across several days. A motion to report progress on the bill must be moved on a call, not a point of order—Speaker’s ruling 89/5. Because the annual review debate will run for a fixed period of time and the calls have been allocated proportionally, it would harm the proportionality of the debate to treat the motion to report progress as a member’s entire call. Therefore, when a member moves to report progress in this annual review debate, the presiding officer will call on that member first when the debate resumes. This is a similar process to that followed in other debates when they are adjourned.

At the conclusion of the debate, a single question is put on the provisions of the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector

CHRIS BISHOP (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): Budget 2017 is under a month away, and we have already had a sneak peek at some of it from the Minister of Finance last week, with the extremely exciting announcement about a big capital injection infrastructure package. But the debate this afternoon is, of course, the tail end of Budget 2015, which was a good Budget for New Zealand, and demonstrated a confident Government in charge of an increasingly confident country.

It is my pleasure to take the opening call on the economic development and infrastructure sector. The interesting thing about this theme, I guess you would say, is that there are a lot of committees and a lot of different votes within it. I want to concentrate on three particular aspects of economic development and infrastructure.

The first is in Vote Communications and the investment that the Government is making through the Budget process into Rural Broadband Initiative 2, and also the Mobile Black Spot Fund. The Budget that we are talking about, of course, appropriates more money for both those initiatives. The rural broadband first stage has been extremely successful, and the Rural Broadband Initiative 2 will be successful. I know, having recently been lobbying for an extension of the Mobile Black Spot Fund in the rural part of the Wainuiōmata area, in the mighty fine Hutt Valley, that that is something that is absolutely crucial for rural communities. I know it is something that my colleagues spread out around the country, from Invercargill with Sarah Dowie to Alastair Scott in the Wairarapa, or Todd Barclay, or any of my colleagues—I see Jonathan Young waving his hand up over there. He always makes a very strong bid for this funding. People think that the Hutt Valley is a predominantly urban area, and that is true, but we also have rural areas in the Hutt as well, including down in the Coast Road and Wainuiōmata. I have been supporting the rural residents there for the installation of a cellphone tower to get rid of that mobile black spot. So it is very welcome, the funding in the Budget for that.

The second thing I want to mention is Vote Economic Development. Recently, we have had the extremely exciting news from Statistics New Zealand that business research and development expenditure in the country is up 29 percent. This is something that members opposite, I know, are very interested in. Members opposite like to talk about how we need to build a more innovative economy, we need to invest in research and development, and that we need to diversify our economy. The good news for members opposite is that that is happening right around New Zealand. Right around New Zealand, right around the country, there are hundreds of firms exporting on the world stage, doing battle on the world stage, and diversifying the New Zealand economy in medical technology, in ICT, and in so many different areas.

The good news for members opposite is that the latest Statistics New Zealand report into business research and development in 2016 shows that the Government’s sustained investment over many Budgets into Callaghan Innovation and into some of the black hole tax expenditure changes that we have made—those investments and those changes to the grants programme are starting to bear fruit. There has been a massive 29 percent increase in business R & D between 2014 and 2016—up $356 million since 2014. That is a sizable increase.

We have still got a long way to go. We have got to get that research and development spending up by business and Government as well. We have got to increase it even further, but that is a great start, and I think it is a testament to the changes that successive Ministers of Science and Innovation have made in that space. And, of course, Budget 2016 increases that investment through the Innovative New Zealand package and puts more money into mission-led science, puts more money into contestable science, and spends more money and invests greater Crown resources into growing those start-up businesses that are such a vital part of the New Zealand economy of the future.

The third thing I just wanted to briefly mention in kicking off this debate is the change from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) Focus 500 to Focus 700. I was just reading the report and there was a question asked in the select committee that considered this: why is NZTE making this change from Focus 500 to Focus 700? The answer is because there are more businesses out there in New Zealand that need NZTE support on the world stage. There are more businesses—700 fast-growing companies on the world stage—that need Government support in those offshore markets where they can make a difference and grow their exports. That is why it happened, and that is what is given effect to in the Budget. So it is a pleasure to kick off this debate. I am looking forward to the rest of it.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Well, if that is going to be the quality of the debate going forward for the next 10 hours then the people of New Zealand will know there is only one very clear choice on 23 September, and that is to vote for a change of Government. In fact, Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern have been travelling this country filling up halls with New Zealanders who are sick to death of this Government, with New Zealanders who are actually looking for a vision, who are looking for a way forward, and who are looking for a new New Zealand—and they are not getting it with this Government. They are hearing a plan when Jacinda and Andrew travel around New Zealand and fill halls. People are finally saying: “Yes, maybe, it is time for a change after 9 long years.”

When I hear Mr Bishop stand up and talk about what is happening in rural New Zealand, what I can say is that in a town in my electorate, Wairoa—which the Minister in the chair, Steven Joyce, knows well because he has been there and seen the most innovative project, I believe, on the books in New Zealand at this point in time, which is Rocket Lab—they are not going to have ultra-fast broadband up there for at least another 5 or 6 years. This is symptomatic of small-town, rural, provincial New Zealand. They have fantastic ideas; they want to be out there taking on the world, and yet the most basic tool that will allow them to do this is so far out of reach that it is unbelievable.

If you do not empower these rural communities then there is no way that they can be the innovative places that they should be. For Mr Bishop to stand up and talk about R & D—the cheek of that gentleman. We have one of the lowest R & D spends in the OECD and one of the lowest—if not the lowest—R & D spends by the private sector in the OECD. Do you know what started this fall? It was when that Government, upon assuming power, took away the R & D tax credit, which Treasury advised them not to do. It was a backward step that has sent us back about 10 or 15 years.

Let us talk about economic development. The high-level numbers do not look too bad, to be honest. But let us dig a little bit deeper into the indicators that really matter to good hard-working Kiwis on the ground in rural provincial New Zealand, as well as the big cities. Unemployment is at 140,000 people—47,000 more than when National took office. There are 90,000 “neets”. These are the 15 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, training, or employment. The interesting thing is that when this Government came into power these young people were aged between 6 and 15. You would have thought that theirs was an aspirational future that they could grab hold of. Instead, 9 years later when these 6-year-olds are now 15, you get a Prime Minister calling them what? What did he call them, Mr Lees-Galloway?

Iain Lees-Galloway: “Pretty damned hopeless.”

STUART NASH: “Pretty damned hopeless.” People who were 6 years old are now being called “pretty damned hopeless” when they are 15 by that Prime Minister. I think that this Government has to take serious responsibility for what has happened to these “neets” over the last 9 years. Finally there is a party with a vision and the plan on how to get these young people back into employment and back into contributing to society.

If you look at the Business Growth Agenda—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What is it?

STUART NASH: You will hear it in the next 10 hours, believe me—believe me. If you read about the Business Growth Agenda it sounds really good on paper. The first thing it says in the Business Growth Agenda is: “Develop with key stakeholders a broad, compelling, and flexible New Zealand story that works for a range of exporters and sectors.”

I think one of the worst things this Government has actually done is completely mismanage our global brand. All you have to do is hear Mr Parker talk about the dreadful state of our waterways. We go out there with a “clean, green”, “100% Pure” brand that is just an absolute myth. I know Mr Bishop believes this. In 2005 the then Ministry of Economic Development valued this brand at $20 billion a year, and that Government has devalued it.

Over the next 5 months New Zealanders are going to see a lot more of the vision that Labour has in the economic development space. You are going to hear the plans that we have to grow the regions and grow our communities, to provide real support for small to medium businesses that really want to grow and take on the world, and to provide assistance for those who are ready to take on the world but just feel there is no support from this Government at all. I cannot wait till 23 September.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And I cannot wait for you to sit down. I will just let each side of the House have a smack each way, in order to explain the rules. The deal is that we are doing this in a new way.

This debate is not a wide-ranging general debate, telling us what we are going to hear during the election campaign or telling us about the prolific travels and visitations around the country by leaders and deputy leaders from the parties. It is a very specific debate about entities that are within these themes that we are running—here, the economic development and infrastructure sector—and I am sad to relate that the last speaker, Stuart Nash, did not quote a single one of the reports, and, actually, neither did the first speaker, Chris Bishop. The deal is—it may be boring, but you have got 10 hours of it—when a person chooses to speak on this theme, the person then cites the report and talks about the select committee review of the 2015-16 year, not the 2016-17 year or what they hope to achieve in the 2017-18 year.

That is the deal. That is what the Business Committee has signed you up for, like it or not, so those are going to be the rules the presiding officers will be adhering to. So if you are going to make a speech, make it consistent with the Business Committee’s rulings. Quote the report that you are calling from, and knock yourself out.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just be clear, however, I do not think the Business Committee ever envisaged that the debate would be so restrictive that members had to be quoting page and line numbers of a report. They need to talk about what is in the report, but I do not think the intention of the committee was to restrict the debate so that members had to be so narrow they could talk only about a particular sentence or a particular issue in so far as it is covered in the report. I think that, for example, when we get to the education report, covering the topics that are covered in the Education and Science Committee’s report is sufficient. I do not think the intention was to restrict the debate down so narrowly that you can cover only the exact material in the report, because, of course, select committees hear a lot more material than is reflected in the wording of the report.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I take the member’s point, and I am surprised that he would think that any of the presiding officers would read it that narrowly, because much as it may be painful to have to give a speech like that, it is even worse to have to listen to it. The point is, though, that if members are familiar and au fait with their portfolio area that they are speaking on, they should be able to draw attention to a report. We are not expecting pages and line numbers. We expect it to be colourful and eloquent, and, hopefully, humorous and witty and entertaining, as well.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Mr Chair, I thank you for that assistance and direction as we look at the annual review, and I think it is probably going to be very helpful for the Opposition, in particular, because it appears from that last 5-minute offering from Mr Nash that its only economic policy seems to be the R & D tax credits that it has had for the last three elections.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it is completely inappropriate for the Minister, in his first contribution, to do exactly the opposite of what you just admonished the Opposition and the prior National Party speaker for doing. I would suggest that you call the Minister to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I thank the member for his support. I am not required to call him to order, because he has already had that. Thank you very much.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will now address my comments in particular to the annual review of Treasury and the financial statements of the Government. I will focus on that, as against the previous speaker, Mr Nash, because that is a very good context for this Committee’s discussion over the next 10 hours.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report made it clear that the New Zealand economy is going very well at the moment—one of the strongest-performing economies in the world since the global financial crisis. It was noted that we have had positive growth now for some years, and, in fact, I can tell the Committee that we have had positive growth in every quarter but one over those last 6 years. It is a very good performance. When you line this country up against countries like the US, like Japan, like Canada, like the EU, and like Australia, we were, in fact, the fifth fastest growing economy in the developed world last year, and that is actually coming in to higher incomes and more jobs for Kiwis.

I would like to report to the Committee, given some inaccurate data reported recently, that the New Zealand employment rate—the rate of employment of adult New Zealanders; everybody over the age of 15—is now at 66.9 percent. That is just under 70 percent, which is our highest rate ever, and, actually, one of the highest in the developed world. We also have a very big margin of employment over Australia currently, and a big margin of full-time employment for New Zealand over Australia. That shows how a strong economy flows through for Kiwis around the country.

The good news is that the forecasts are that this will continue. The Secretary to the Treasury was talking to the select committee about the prognosis for the New Zealand economy, and I too had my opportunity to speak to the committee and lay out the Reserve Bank predictions for quite solid economic growth—an average of 3 percent over the next 4 years. Why is that happening? Well, we did traverse that at the committee, and the committee itself traversed it, and New Zealand’s economic growth story is driven by a number of things: firstly, the strong fiscal performance and fiscal policy of this Government; the orthodox monetary policy that this Government adopts—and I think New Zealand has shown that it is important that monetary, fiscal, and microeconomic policy work well together if you are going to get a good result for Kiwis; and a number of things that this Government is particularly focused on.

Firstly, there is trade. We have made a particular emphasis on taking advantage of the opportunities of the big growth in middle-income consumers through Asia. We have a trade-friendly Government that is encouraging companies to export with organisations like New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and Callaghan Innovation, and, despite the dairy decline over the last few years, New Zealand’s exports have in fact grown.

Secondly, we have seen an increase in growth in our working-age population. That is actually really important, because we have got a lot of companies that want to grow, currently, and in order to grow they need to keep hiring skilled people. We have the opportunity, because not only is our education system delivering more graduates but our immigration system is encouraging skilled migrants to come to New Zealand to work for our companies.

Thirdly, New Zealand firms are becoming more innovative. I am not sure, again, why the member of the Opposition picked on this, because, actually, the story of New Zealand’s R & D is one of growing research and development. In fact, the example that Mr Nash raised is of a company called Rocket Lab, which is indeed the beneficiary of this Government’s R & D investment policies, alongside Callaghan Innovation. So it is slightly ironic for the Opposition to raise that in criticism.

Also, we have seen active encouragement of private sector investment in this country, which is important, and, finally, the public infrastructure that we need for growth—and we talked about that in the House earlier this afternoon. This Government is delivering strong economic growth.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to take this call and, in the main, reply to the contributions already from the Government members. Mr Bishop, for example, spoke about—I think the 2015-16 Budget was called a plan that is working. What we are seeing from the debate today is a large number of appropriations that show exactly the opposite. He spoke about the glaring success of business research and development. He claims Government success from the growth in research and development from business of 29 percent. Of course the National Government claims that that is its success, despite the very same statistics Mr Bishop referred to telling New Zealanders and highlighting to this Government that over the same period since 2014, Government contribution to R & D has gone up by only 5 percent in that entire time. I want to point out to those Government members across the aisle there that this is a race, that this is a competition with the rest of the world, and that they are not holding up their end of the bargain.

So, Mr—I keep forgetting your name—

Tracey Martin: Hudson.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Hudson. Mr Hudson, how do we measure the success of R & D by Government and business? Let us ask what a simple way is of measuring that. I put it to the Committee that a simple way of measuring that is the amount of external trade this country undertakes as a percentage of its economy. Well, the measure is a simple one, and its outcome is that trade as a percentage of this economy is absolutely, undoubtedly, going backwards—undoubtedly going backwards.

Hon Steven Joyce: No, it’s not.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: As a percentage of GDP, Minister, it is going backwards.

The Minister of Finance spoke about positive growth and a wonderful economy going on, but then he failed to mention in his analysis that that is not true as a measure per capita. Our economy per capita has been stagnant, or, if we concede and give some ultra-right interpretation of the statistics, it has grown marginally per individual. What does the implication of that mean? Because he is right—the economy has grown. But where has that gone if it is not being spread out evenly amongst New Zealanders? It means that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

In fact, the Minister quoted OECD statistics. He quoted the OECD as a measure of how well this economy is doing. Well, let me quote the OECD back to the Minister, and highlight the fact that it was the OECD, in a formal report to all its member nations, that said that New Zealand, as a member, has one of the highest inequality data sets in the developed world. In fact, we are bordering on Third World numbers in comparison, in inequality. That means that the OECD itself—completely ignored by the Ministers here—has shown to New Zealand and to that Government that inequality is huge. It is growing, and those members opposite are not doing anything to address that—certainly not through the appropriations.

I asked the question before—I think this Budget was called a plan that is working, and, in conclusion, I just want to highlight to the members opposite that there is no plan. There is no plan. The former Minister of Finance was diametrically opposed to the Government doing anything meaningful in its Budgets, hence this rigmarole around appropriations and trying to move money into places where it is needed. Economic development and infrastructure, which are the topics we are focusing on, are inexorably linked. For 9 years this Government has done nothing meaningful in terms of infrastructure development.

I have got only 30 seconds left. I have got example after example of opportunities missed, but the reality is that this Government has cost this nation. It has cost businesses and it has cost our Kiwi households in terms of homelessness, just as one example of its lack of action, its lack of spending, and its lack of leadership. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): There are lies, there are damned lies and statistics, and then there is Fletcher Tabuteau’s rubbish that he has just been speaking over there. What we know from the documents we are actually here debating and from the OECD reports—actually, from all the metrics you will get from the banks, and so on—is that that guy over there is talking alternative facts. All of the real facts show that this is an economy that is at the top of its game and is, in comparison to the rest of the Western World, doing very well. It does not mean it is perfect, but it is doing very well. It is growing GDP exports per capita. GDP is going very well. We are winning the race, Mr Tabuteau, that you talk to.

We have heard a lot about a space and rocket lab. Well, actually, this year New Zealand will be—I think it is either the seventh or the ninth country in the world to send a rocket into space, and do that commercially. That is a result of the economic development portfolios, the votes, and the R & D grants that we have in this country. We should be really proud. It is but one example of the diversification in this economy and what that is doing to keep us growing strongly, which, ultimately, means better lifestyles and standards of living for New Zealanders.

We have come from being in a difficult situation, actually—with the global financial crisis, with earthquakes—to a position where we are growing strongly, where our books are back in surplus. We have a primary sector in good health that is diversifying into a number of very exciting areas. Today I met with New Zealand Winegrowers, a remarkable story of growth—up to $1.7 billion of exports. That is directly relevant to what we are talking about here, when we talk about economic development and what we have got to do. We are doing it in our economy—in the primary sector but also in technology and in services. Whether you are talking movies, films—“Wellywood” is actually No. 2 in the world behind Hollywood as a place to make movies; it is a very vibrant sector—whether it is companies in ICT and software like Xero and like Push Play; whether it is in services such as tourism, where we have had massive growth, or international education, this is an incredibly strong economy that people are seeing the benefits of, by and large. All of that means that we have got choices, and none of that happened by accident; it happened because great businesses, big and small, are getting in and doing it, and a good Government is giving them the confidence to do that through its policies.

Infrastructure is what we are here to talk about as well, and those surpluses and the growing New Zealand economy, which business and the Government share the credit for, mean we can invest more in infrastructure than ever before: $11 billion over the next 3 years. Let us just talk about ultra-fast broadband (UFB), about internet connectivity, because that is something that has come through in these reports and also in the speeches. In fact, in New Zealand we have gone from the back of the queue of the OECD—that is, the so-called wealthy countries in the OECD—to much closer to the front of the queue. I believe we can do even better besides, as recently we have seen decisions made to provide another 151 towns with UFB, and as we go further, even, from there, as is my aspiration as communications Minister.

Talking about infrastructure and the New Zealand Transport Agency—which, again, is part of this—just in the last couple of weeks the Government has made very important decisions in infrastructure. We have seen $812 million announced as going to the rebuild down there. It is something we can do to make New Zealand more resilient and, as a result, a resilient economy under this National-led Government. Whether it is the western ring route talked about in Parliament today in question time—over $2.4 billion of investment, which is a game-changer for Auckland; whether it is down to smaller projects like Waterview Road in Napier, with $25 million worth of work started; whether it is our preferred routes , which have been made quite clear in the last couple of weeks, from Mount Messenger to Awakino; whether it is the ring route in Palmerston North or State Highway 1 and 29 in my area, which will be four-laned at a cost of several hundred million dollars—economic development and infrastructure are at the heart of this Government and its programme for New Zealand.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The Minister of Finance, in his contribution, spoke about New Zealand’s growth rate and about it being the fifth-highest in the OECD. It is true that our growth rate is 3.4 percent, or around 3.5 percent, and that looks very impressive—until you dive into the numbers. People who are trying to feed their kids, put a roof over their home, or get their kids to school do not really care about a growth rate of 3.4 percent. They want to know whether they have got a job.

We have got an unemployment rate of 5.2 percent, and it is increasing under this National Government. We have got 90,000 young people who are not in work or education, and we have got the lowest rate of homeownership since the 1950s. A statistic that I found staggering is that in 1991 one in four 25-year-olds in New Zealand owned their own home. Today it is one in 20.

These are the figures that really matter. These are the things that make people’s lives more or less comfortable, that give people an opportunity to get ahead or not. So the Minister can crow as much as he likes about the growth rate, but the truth is that for far too many New Zealanders—a growing number of New Zealanders—life has gotten progressively tougher under this Government. Now, why is that? If we have got such an amazing growth rate, why is it that people are struggling so much? Well, the fact is that if you look at GDP growth per capita it is anaemic, and that is the nicest thing I can say about it. At 0.4 percent, growth per capita is not delivering improved lives for ordinary Kiwis.

The only thing that is making our economy grow at the moment is population growth. We have got more people, therefore the economy is bigger. But on a per-person basis, in terms of what the economy actually delivers for people—have they got a roof over their head, have they got food on the table, have they got a job to go to—this National Government fails to deliver, year after year after year, and it is only getting worse.

We have to address the elephant in the room around population growth, because the thing that is driving population growth is immigration. Immigration has always been important to New Zealand. When new migrants bring skills that help make New Zealand more prosperous, everybody wins. When we get those skills and we grow our economy and we grow innovative businesses that pay higher wages, people are better off. Unfortunately—the Minister in the chair at the moment, Michael Woodhouse, is responsible for this, as is Bill English—we have got an immigration system at the moment that is being completely abused by the National Government. It is using it to bring in vulnerable workers who are exploited by poor employers. This Government is subsidising bad employers by giving them the opportunity to employ migrant labour and then failing to enforce basic employment law, allowing new migrants to be exploited—not getting them paid properly, not getting them paid for all the hours that they work, not getting their holiday pay, and not getting fair terms and conditions around health and safety. Under National, rogue employers exploit migrant workers and they get away with it, because we simply do not have a labour inspectorate that is sufficiently and adequately resourced to be out there in the areas that use a large amount of migrant labour, to ensure that basic employment law is being adhered to.

For goodness’ sake, in Marlborough, where we have one of the highest concentrations of low-skill, low-paid migrant labour in New Zealand, there is an absolute paucity of labour inspectors. In Blenheim, there is not one—there is not one. We have got vulnerable, exploitable migrant workers crying out for an opportunity to actually raise their concerns about their employment situations, but there is nobody there to actually deal with it, and that is deliberate from this Government because it helps keep wages down. It helps keep conditions at work down. That is not just bad for the migrant workers but it is bad for everybody else.

It is time that we get our immigration system back on track, focused on the skills that will grow our economy, grow our innovative businesses, and create opportunities, not just for our new migrants but for everybody in New Zealand. We also need to make sure that our population growth is at a sustainable rate that our infrastructure can keep up with. The fact that we do not have enough houses, the fact that we have a transport system that is absolutely clogged up, and the fact that people cannot get into the hospital or into schools is the fault of the Government, because it has failed to invest in infrastructure, but it is being caused by our population growth. It is time to take a pause and get our immigration system back on track.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): As Minister of Immigration, and as one who was going to speak in this debate, I think it behoves me to respond to the contribution of Mr Lees-Galloway. I think it is important that we do have a robust but sensible conversation about migration and immigration. I want to offer a slightly different perspective on that, because Mr Lees-Galloway’s thesis is that the only reason GDP growth is occurring is because of population growth.

Now, I think there are two quite big categories of visa where there is a contribution to the economy and GDP, and those are in international education—our second-largest service export earner by value, and an employer of 32,000 people—and, to a degree, in tourism. In fact, we have seen very strong growth in the number of working holidaymakers who are coming. There are presently around 64,000 visa holders in that category, but they all go home again. They earn a bit, and they spend a bit. I think if we were to go to places like Queenstown, Wānaka, Rotorua, and the Coromandel and say that we were going to arbitrarily pull the plug and substantially reduce, perhaps by tens of thousands, working holidaymakers, it might have quite a significant negative economic impact.

But there are a number of people who are in New Zealand on what are called essential skills work visas. That is where it is necessary for there to be a test of whether a New Zealander can do the job. Here is the inconvenient truth for the Labour Party: when it was in Government, the number of essential skills work visas that were issued by that Government was about a third more than is currently being issued right now. About 40 percent fewer essential skills visas are being issued—

Iain Lees-Galloway: What was total inward migration? Come on, what was net migration?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, that is right, what was net migration? Let us talk about net migration under Labour. New Zealanders were fleeing the country. They were leaving in their tens of thousands, and the fact is that under a growing economy New Zealanders are staying home and coming home. If Labour wants to say that that part of net migration is a bad thing, then good luck explaining that to the electorate in the next 4 months. This Government has a very balanced approach, a demand-driven approach to migration and immigration. I challenge Labour, in its claim to want to reduce immigration by tens of thousands—

Alastair Scott: 50,000.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I think Mr Little did say 50,000, and then he recanted that. But 50,000 is tens of thousands—

Iain Lees-Galloway: No, he didn’t, actually.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, I will accept Mr Lees-Galloway at his word: he has not recanted it, so it is 50,000. OK? So I would like the Labour Party, in this debate, to explain which 50,000 visas it is going to refuse. Is it going to be the nearly 100,000 international students who study here and have a few work rights, who contribute $4 billion to this economy? Is it the tens of thousands of working holidaymakers, who are pretty much a net neutral contributor because they earn it, then they spend it, then they earn it, then they spend it? Or is it going to be the about 12,000 overseas workers who are helping us rebuild our second-largest city following the Canterbury earthquakes? Are they going to go to Blenheim and say to that fantastic, world-leading viticulture sector, which is selling to the world record numbers and value of wine: “That’s it, it’s all over.”?

Brett Hudson: They want to turn the tap off.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right. Are they going to go to the Western Bay of Plenty and say that the kiwifruit needs to rot on the vine? Because I, for one, want every single willing, able Kiwi to be in work right now.

I challenge those people who are on jobseeker support, who claim that they are ready, willing, and able, to go out there and find one of the 121,000 new jobs that we are going to be creating in the next 4 years—to get to the front of the queue, because this Government will back them. It is working harder than any Government previously to make sure that they are at the front of the queue, and that is as evidenced by the reduction in those labour market - tested work visas over the last 8 years. But if the Labour Party wants to turn down the tap, if it wants to say that immigration is the only contributor to population growth, it needs to reveal its plan to the electorate now.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to address the annual review as it relates to transport, and especially rail. What we saw as a result of the Kaikōura earthquake aftermath is that we actually have a fragile transport system. It also showed, of course, the value of a good coastal shipping service, especially from port to port, and the need for a much more resilient railway system. What we actually see from the reports is under-investment in transport and, most particularly, in New Zealand’s railway system. We have often heard about National’s RONS—roads of national significance—because National really cares only about roads. That is a forlorn strategy, as has been shown overseas, because roads alone will not actually fulfil New Zealand’s transport needs.

Of course we do need a good State roading system—we know that—but rail in New Zealand is grossly underfunded and neglected, and that is in terms of both capital expenditure and gross under expenditure in the maintenance of the system as it now is. The reason for that, I think, is that National sees roads as an essential public service, but it only sees railways as just another business, whereas New Zealand First would wish to see investment in the full redevelopment of our run-down railway system.

We have a policy that we call railways of national importance—RONI instead of RONS—because New Zealand’s railway network is an essential public service that must have the quality and capacity to take a much higher proportion of New Zealand’s long-haul freight requirements, along with, of course, coastal shipping. We see it as essential that there be a large, long-term reinvestment in the railway system. That is essential. It is essential to optimise its role in support of New Zealand’s economy, and for an efficient, cost-effective, multi-modal, well-integrated transport system, and that is something we do not have, but should.

To this end, New Zealand First wants to see the cost of development of new tracks and services, of electric reticulation through the whole of the main trunk, and of reopening several closed lines to be met not just by the revenue generated by the railway system but by a combination of land transport funding and Crown grants. Also, New Zealand First wants to see a review of the structure of New Zealand railways so that we could get full separation of the infrastructure and engineering divisions from the freight and passenger divisions. Infrastructure and engineering must become funded as a public service, and freight and passenger services, as a business, funded partly from charges and partly from the Land Transport Fund. Also, other freight businesses should have access to the railway infrastructure to run their own railway services. We would also like to see the Hutt and Hillside facilities reopened so that electric locomotives and wagons could be refurbished and built within New Zealand, using New Zealand labour and skills.

One of the biggest needs of a redeveloped railways service is the need for more maintenance staff, and many more highly-skilled maintenance staff, to enable the system we speak of to be upgraded so that it can operate to its full potential. With a modern system to replace the Third World system we now have, we are going to need a lot more investment and, in particular, to reduce travel times between Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. That is achievable, along with a programme of full electrification, which is needed, and also a new Cook Strait rail ferry—something we do not now have, and that is rather sad.

The absence of adequate funding is a serious problem, and one of the glaring gaps in the Government’s programme of investment. New Zealand First wants to see that rectified, and the sooner the better.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I refer to the report on the annual review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. On page 4 it speaks of the Regional Growth Programme, which is very, very important for New Zealand, because out in the regions, as we know—us regional MPs—there is huge opportunity for growth and there are massive resources that are enabling this economy to prosper.

Just following the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, speaking of the virtues of rail—well, our businesses and our freight forwarders use rail where rail is efficient and cost-effective for them. But often they need to also utilise road transport, because it is a cost to businesses to offload from a factory to a rail head and then back to a truck, to be able to get their product to market. They need to find efficiencies around that, and I am sure the bright people at KiwiRail will work and create some innovations.

When it comes to regional New Zealand, I want to talk a little bit about the $135 million being invested into State Highway 3 and why that is important. It comes on the back of a very successful Government that has been able to enable this country and this economy to grow. We have surpluses that we are able to reinvest into our economies—$11 billion over the next 4 years, and some of that is going to State Highway 3, which you, Mr Chairperson Borrows, will be very familiar with because, no doubt, yourself and other members of Parliament from Taranaki go up and down that passage of road quite often.

But what travels that road in great numbers is the road transport industry, because it carries freight in and out of Taranaki over that road. We know that when there are closures to that road—as there often are because of the terrain and the weather, elements that we cannot control—and those vehicles need to go south, up through Feilding and up State Highway 1, for every trip that those trucks take to either bring produce and food into the region or take exports out, it is an extra $1,000. That is a huge cost to the people of Taranaki, a huge cost to business. It is speaking not only about the resiliency of that road but also the safety of it, so what we see is a Government that, through its good management of the economy, is able to afford an infrastructure spend of $11 billion over the next 4 years, and the people of Taranaki appreciate that.

Looking at regional growth—in fact, New Zealand is covered in regions, 15 regions. There are metropolitan centres with large amounts of population, but then there are regions. Over this last year 137,000 jobs have been added to the New Zealand economy, and many of them are in the regions. Just last week I was in the Hawke’s Bay, meeting with Business Hawke’s Bay, and it said that over the next year it was anticipating 4,000 new jobs. This is a horticultural area, very much the same as Gisborne, which, over the next few years, is looking at another 1,200 jobs. There are jobs available for New Zealanders. There are jobs available in highly profitable businesses, and many of those jobs are high-paying jobs as well. We encourage New Zealanders to seek out those jobs.

But one of the great steps that this Government has taken, with the action plan in Gisborne, is to fund a job coordinator. Those businesses are so hard at work doing business that managing a mobile workforce through many orchards and horticultural plants is quite difficult, because they work hard. So there is coordination to recruit, to train, and to enable those new employees to come into those positions. But that is great news, is it not? It is great news to see these people finding employment. We know that up in those regions, 10 months out of 12, they need those workers there. It is great to see that these regions are succeeding, and this Government is supporting them through the Regional Growth Programme. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): When Simon Bridges got up to trumpet the things that the Government might do in the future, such as delivering the next stage of ultra-fast broadband to New Zealand, he neglected, as so many Government Ministers on that side of the House do, to tell us about the 130,000 New Zealanders who will not get that better connectivity for up to 7 years—up to 7 years. But they should be happy now—they should be happy now. That is one example of the regional development progress that the Government talks about that actually is not a reality; it is just a myth.

My comments relate to the 2015-16 annual review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. What that report says—it has got increased spending on contractors. There is no focus on local procurement as a lever for regional development. It trumpets the Government’s export goals of 40 percent of GDP by 2025, but guess where that target is now? It is nowhere near 40 percent. It is 30 percent and going backwards. That is just one example of the myth-making that this Government does.

The previous speaker talked about the regions—New Zealand’s regions. Well, I want to talk about the region that I am part of and that I represent, which is Dunedin, which is part of Otago, and the disinterest that this Government shows in significant regions in our country. On 16 February Dunedin was rocked by the news that its 80-year-old efficient, agile chocolate factory, Cadbury’s, now owned by multinational Mondelez International, was to close, with the loss of nearly 400 jobs. A month later—yes, it took a month—Prime Minister Bill English paid a flying visit to Dunedin and said the closure of the Cadbury factory in Dunedin will be a huge thing for affected workers, who may prove to be more resilient than expected. That was it.

So just how resilient should we be, Mr English? There was the closure of the Hillside railway workshops, with the loss of hundreds of skilled manufacturing jobs, and the decimation of a vibrant engineering hub in Dunedin; the gutting of the Invermay agricultural research facility, with the loss of nearly 100 jobs; and the glacial progress on the rebuild of Dunedin Hospital, and the erosion of health services for those who are trying to get an appointment with a specialist, let alone get on to a waiting list for an operation.

And then there is the consensus building in the city that the lack of affordable rental properties is reaching or has already reached crisis point. Dunedin rents are up 16 percent in the last year. If you are on a low income and your lease ends, finding an affordable house is really hard. Once upon a time there used to be State houses for those who found it hard to afford those rents, and if household incomes were going up, that would not be such an issue. But they are not. In Otago last year the average household income actually fell 1 percent. There are more than 100 people on the waiting list for State houses, meanwhile 53 lie empty. There are 160 on the waiting list for Dunedin City Council community housing. It is the longest it has ever been.

Families are in motels, just like everywhere else around the country. But this is what is happening in our city right now—living in cars and in garages. To get a State house in Dunedin you have to be prepared to speak out publicly. The Minister sitting in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, knows it. Winter is approaching, and Bill English wafts into town and observes how resilient we all are.

So if you ask Dunedin people what their top-of-mind issues are, the rebuild of Dunedin Hospital, the lack of affordable housing, and worry about jobs are the top three. This Government’s and Bill English’s view about resilience—it is like he has taken Dunedin into the wilderness and left us there to survive on our own. That is his view of resilience. He is doing nothing and he has got no vision. It is time for a fresh approach, from a Government that actually cares about provincial New Zealand.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I am taking this opportunity because on Friday it was Workers’ Memorial Day, which is the time when we should all reflect on the number of people who go to work and actually never come back. In fact, in the previous 3 weeks seven people have died on the job.

In my contribution to this debate I want to talk about the annual review that we did with WorkSafe New Zealand, which, I have to say, is working incredibly hard to try to turn around what was quite a huge number of people who were dying at work—to turn that around.

In the review period that we were looking at—2015-16—there had been 59 deaths at work. But since 2012, in the targets that WorkSafe has been setting, that has actually been trending downwards, and it should be congratulated. Unfortunately, there were something like 230,000 ACC claims at the same time for work-related injuries, and that has been trending upwards. On top of those injuries and deaths at work, there was also between 600 and 900 deaths from work-related illnesses, most of which were airborne.

When we look at that and we look at the fact that our economy runs on our workforce, we need to be looking at what sort of an investment we are putting into ensuring that that workforce is safe. I have to say that this Government has taken a very cavalier approach to industrial relations, which is how workers have traditionally maintained safety on the job. I guess we just have to look at the 29 deaths in the tragedy at the Pike River mine to look at how cavalier things can become when unions are not on site and are not as active, and when there is limited monitoring and compliance.

That, I guess, is the crux of the matter. The health and safety inspectors that we have are pressed to the max. If you think about the number of small workplaces that we have in this country, and we are looking at tens of thousands—I think I saw something like 78,000 in one area alone—if you look at those worksites and you look at the ability for health and safety inspectors to actually monitor the conditions there, it is just totally impossible. We have seen, through the labour inspectorate, which has been visiting smaller worksites, particularly in the agricultural sector, which has the highest fatality rates, that there has been a real breach of minimum employment standards right across the board, in terms of minimum pay, hours of work, holidays, sick leave, record-keeping—just basic standards not being met.

If you think about those small worksites in the agricultural sector, maybe in farming, what you have there as well is a high prevalence of workers who are originally not from this country—people who have come here who obviously are contributing to our economy but are frequently in an isolated situation where they are vulnerable to exploitation. We see this time and time again, and this is something that we definitely need to be keeping an eye on, particularly when we are looking at our immigration policies.

That is the difference between this country and lots of other countries. Here in New Zealand you are four times more likely to die at work than if you are a worker in the UK. Australia beats us as well; you are twice as likely to die here in New Zealand than if you are a worker in Australia. And it is just not acceptable, because we could be investing more in our people, more in our businesses, to ensure that people are safe at work, and that they are getting the minimum rates of pay and conditions. What we need to be doing is we need to be ensuring that our unions are able to take their part in ensuring that our workers can participate in health and safety—and that was the thing that was gutted in the health and safety Act that was enacted in that 2015 year. So this is a missed opportunity. We could be doing much better, and I hope we will.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I speak in respect of the report on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)—particularly that conducted by the Commerce Committee. At that meeting, among a number of things, we talked about our programmes and progress around research and development growth.

I particularly want to speak in relation to some points that Mr Fletcher Tabuteau of New Zealand First raised just a wee bit earlier in this debate. Mr Tabuteau acknowledged that private sector business contribution to research and development in the last 12 months or so had grown by 29 percent. That is very true—29 percent. You would think that would be something to be proud of, and to raise and laud as something good for the country, but Mr Tabuteau did not. That might come as some surprise, but you know that New Zealand First members are often known to defy common sense and logic, so it possibly did not come as too much of a shock to members on this side of the Chamber. What it did show is that Mr Tabuteau does not understand this Government’s R & D plan, nor does he understand the R & D objectives of any countries in the OECD.

You see, it is the intention of small developing countries, or large and advanced countries, for the private sector to bear a greater burden of the R & D investment. There are generally two things that countries are looking to achieve. Generally, they want to grow their R & D expenditure to around 2.5 percent or more of GDP, and they want business to have the lion’s share of that. In New Zealand—and if Mr Tabuteau had actually sat on the Commerce Committee, instead of just pontificating from his seat over there, he would know that the report from MBIE shows—the level of Government R & D investment in New Zealand is considered very strong within the OECD, particularly given that we are considered a small advanced nation, of course, and not one of the larger ones.

So when we have a situation where the private sector business investment in R & D is outstripping the Government investment in R & D, that is actually a good thing. It is a good thing because it shows that we are getting closer to the objective of not only growing overall research and development expenditure but having the private sector contributing a greater amount towards that. So, overall, the news we got from MBIE around that was that it is pleased that there is a greater propensity or a greater willingness for business to invest, but we still have a way to go. Another area that MBIE pointed out we have a way to go in is the commercialisation of that R & D. We might then note that the change of the chief executive of Callaghan Innovation is to someone who has got proven experience in the private sector and has been brought on to help companies in New Zealand to exploit that R & D investment further.

The other part I would like to touch upon is in one of the other reports. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) came to talk to us. As a small trading nation at the bottom of the world, to which no one owes a living, we are wholly dependent on exports for the prosperity of New Zealanders. So when we are trading with other nations, it is not actually about commodities or goods or services, it is actually about jobs and income. That is because the more trade avenues we have and the fewer barriers we have for our goods and services to be traded overseas, the more jobs we create in New Zealand and the higher incomes are raised for the workers in those areas.

We heard from NZTE, whose job is to help Kiwis act upon and exploit the free-trade agreements that people like the Hon Todd McClay work so hard to put in place around the world. I would acknowledge the work that Mr McClay has been doing to put, in perhaps a new form—but to salvage some very positive trade outcomes from all of those Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and the progress that was made up until the very late part of last year. It is NZTE’s job to help New Zealand companies to actually capitalise upon those. It particularly has been doing a lot of work around a group of 700-odd companies that are actually not the largest enterprises in New Zealand—companies that have less than $500 million revenue—and it is helping them to actually engage in those markets, to grow their opportunities, and to convert those free-trade agreements into jobs and higher incomes through the provision of more products and services. It has been doing an extremely good job. In fact, NZTE officials were saying to us that they were engaged in about $1.5 billion worth of overseas activity. It is great work all round in the economic development sector.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It gives me pleasure to speak in the appropriations debate, and I will be particularly referring to the annual review of Treasury to June 2016. It is very interesting that the Opposition members do not like to hear what reality is. They do not like to acknowledge that we as a country are performing extremely well. We are one of the easiest places to do business, we are way down on the corruption rankings, we are massive on the social investment—that, particularly, hurts the Opposition when the analysis of the critics is done. We have, as has already been mentioned, one of the highest employment rates in the OECD. This is no coincidence. This is because we are a stable Government, and I am going to talk about infrastructure.

Mr Joyce has already mentioned that the party of infrastructure is National, and despite the cones that are around the electorates, particularly in Auckland, holding up traffic, we are spending billions and billions and billions on roads, rail, and broadband. The other thing we are doing is repaying debt. Mr Joyce mentioned a new target of 10 to 15 percent of net debt to GDP by 2025. That is a new target, that is an aggressive target, and one might ask where we get this money from, where we find this money to invest in the infrastructure, and where we find this money to pay down debt. Well, we get this from the families, the communities, the people of New Zealand who pay their taxes, and that is as a result of a strong, growing, vibrant economy. That is the end of it; that is the beginning of it.

It is a strong economy, which is a prerequisite that enables us to invest in the infrastructure as we have talked about. It is a strong economy that allows us to repay debt aggressively, and that is important because we need to be in a position by 2025 to have between 10 and 15 percent of net debt to GDP, because who knows what is around the corner? Who knows what other crisis might happen? It is all about resilience, setting up New Zealand to face another inevitable earthquake. It is not a matter of if; it is just a matter of when we suffer another earthquake in the Shaky Isles of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The economy is permeating—not just in Auckland, not just in Wellington and Christchurch—through the whole country, through all of the regions. In the South Wairarapa District Council there are 200 new housing consents right now on the table. That may not sound a lot to Auckland MPs, but that is a big number and that will make a difference as people move to the regions. Why are they moving? It is because there are jobs, there are opportunities. The connectivity of ultra-fast broadband makes a difference. You do not have to be sitting in an office in Wellington or Auckland to conduct business internationally. All of our schools are connected to the internet. That connectivity is making the world a smaller and smaller place, more accessible to our young people and future generations from every community, from our regional as well as our city communities.

Rural Broadband Initiative 2 is out for tender right now. Those results will be coming out soon, I would imagine, and that, again, is going to increase the percentage of New Zealanders who are going to have high-speed internet, no matter where they might be situated—whether it is the west coast of the Wairarapa, which is remote, difficult to access, and has a low population, or elsewhere. Those people will be connected to the rest of the world, like the rest of us, and that gives those people the opportunity to succeed.

The Opposition does not like good news. There is going to be more and more of it over the next 10 hours, and I look forward to hearing more of it from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber.

Reports noted.

Education Sector

Dr JIAN YANG (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): I would like to, firstly, acknowledge the former education Minister Hekia Parata for her great contribution to our education improvement and also to enhancing the student achievement in this country. The Hon Hekia Parata worked tirelessly, and she was deeply committed to improving our education system and to improving our student achievement. I would also like to acknowledge, or congratulate, the new education Minister, the Hon Nikki Kaye. I have worked with the Hon Nikki Kaye on a number of projects. I am confident that the Hon Nikki Kaye will be a very capable, very committed education Minister. As the chair of the Education and Science Committee, I look forward to working with Minister Nikki Kaye.

The National Government has steadily increased the funding for education. We understand that education is particularly important to our country and to our young New Zealanders. If we want to have a globally competitive economy, we must have a globally competitive workforce. That is why education is particularly important. Also, education is essential to all young New Zealanders for them to succeed. So we have continually increased funding for all those reasons. Since 2009 we have increased funding substantially—about 35 percent. Our education spending is about $11 billion, which is the highest ever—$11 billion. When compared with other OECD countries, New Zealand spent the highest percentage on education—the highest percentage of our public spending on education. That is how important education is to us.

In terms of our early childhood education (ECE), we have more than doubled our spending there to about $1.8 billion. That is another area—from ECE to primary and secondary education—where we have increased our spending. Of course, in terms of tertiary education, we are also working hard in that area. In terms of per child ECE spending, actually we are amongst the top third of OECD countries.

It is not just about how much money we spend; we also pay attention to how we spend the money. We are trying to spend the money in a more innovative and responsible way. For example, we started the $394 million Investing in Educational Success initiative in 2014. We are focusing on career paths. We are focusing on sharing best practice. We are focusing on enhancing student achievement. So it is not just how much, but also how we spend the money. Also, we now have about 197 communities of learning involving well over a half million students and 184 early learning services and also about 1,600 schools, plus four tertiary education providers. So they are working collaboratively, trying to share best practice and also to enhance our student achievement.

So what are the results? First of all, we must say that we now have more students achieving the minimum qualification for success. That means that these students are able to either go to university for further study or to find a job. So this is a very substantial achievement. Basically, in the year 2016 about 85 percent of our students achieved the minimum—NCEA level 2. That is a substantial increase from 2011, about a 10.9 percent increase since 2011. So that, again, is a very major achievement. That means, actually, that since 2011, 21,000 more students achieved NCEA level 2. And with Pasifika and Māori achievement, it is more impressive. In—[Bell rung]

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): We need a different approach to the way we deal with education in New Zealand, an approach that is not about narrowing the focus of our education system but one that is about widening the scope of our education system, one that rejects the standardised, homogenised version that the National Government has of childhood and children, to one that recognises diversity and individuality and that kids develop different things at different rates and they have got different strengths and weaknesses.

The standardised approach in New Zealand has failed. It has failed spectacularly, and we know that because the one peer-reviewed overseas study that we focus on, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)—and I think we focus on PISA far too much—spectacularly demonstrates our tumble down. We get worse in every study.

So let us look at the numbers in the PISA study that the Education and Science Committee was presented with. In 2006, before the National Government, we were fifth in the world for reading, and we are now 10th. We were 11th in the world for maths, and we are now 21st. We were seventh in the world for science, and we are now 12th. But what is more concerning is that it is not just the rankings that have gotten worse in all of these; the average test scores of New Zealand students have declined in every PISA study since the National Party became Government. So it is not just that other countries are getting better; we are actually getting worse. As I have said, I think we focus too much on PISA, but it is the one comparator, the one benchmarking study, that we can look to in order to see how we are doing, and the results are not good. I think that that is concerning.

It is also concerning that the Government crow on about National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and the increased achievement of NCEA, when I think that is one of the greatest acts of deception and, dare I say it, fraud of any Government when it comes to talking about student achievement in education, because the Government does not care about how students achieve their NCEA. It does not care if the credits that students have accumulated to get their NCEA qualifications lead them to nowhere, as long as they get a level 2 qualification so that the Government can say: “Tick. We hit our target.” If NCEA achievement is so much better under this National Government, why are fewer students getting university entrance and why are more students ending up on the dole, doing nothing, or are “neets”—not in education, employment, or training? Those numbers are going up; the numbers of students getting university entrance are going down, despite the fact that NCEA achievement is improving.

We know that there is a massive socio-economic disparity in the way that NCEA achievement is made up. Students in poorer communities—Māori and Pasifika students—are more likely to be directed through pathways of learning for their NCEA that lead them into low-wage, low-value jobs. That is the stunning reality of this, and we should be taking that seriously. Simply saying that qualification achievement rates are going up and that that is all there is to it is not enough. It is an act of deception. These kids are not being equipped for the world beyond school, and that is something that the Government needs to focus a lot more attention on. It is simply not fair what the Government is doing to those kids, and I think that it is not good enough.

School operational funding has been frozen under this National Government. The result is that 13,000 schools around the country get less money this year than they got last year because of National’s funding freeze. We have a teacher supply crisis in this country because National has not been dealing with teaching issues. We have got a support staff problem because support staff are not being paid what they are worth, they are not being looked after, and, as a result, we simply do not have enough people working with kids to meet their learning needs. Parents are paying more and more for their kids’ education even though it is supposed to be free, because the Government simply is not stumping up with the cash.

In early childhood education (ECE), the picture is equally grim. The National Government and the current Minister of Education’s predecessor Hekia Parata have boasted about the fact that they have cut $523 million out of early childhood education by reducing the funding rates. It was one of the first decisions National made when it became the Government, and it has resulted in a $523 million cut from early childhood education. Despite the fact that all of the research tells us that the more money we put into ECE, the better the outcomes in ECE, and the better the kids do all the way through the rest of the system and later on in life, the first thing the National Government did was to cut funding for that. It has abandoned its commitments to improve the ratio of teachers to children for the under-twos. Remember that? That was its headline commitment in 2008, and it has done nothing towards it. It has cut quality by cutting the number of registered qualified teachers in early childhood education. It is a sad state of affairs. It is one that the Government needs to do a lot more about. I do not think there is much hope of it happening under National.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): This might be the last time I participate in speaking on the annual reviews. I have been on the Education and Science Committee now for 8½ years, so I have been through a lot of review processes. I wish I could say that they have provided me with answers to my very, very serious questions about what is actually happening in education, but, unfortunately, it has become a little bit of a rhetorical set piece over the last 8 years. What we have heard over and over again is that the education system is fantastic, that there are no issues, that everything is fine, that the communities of learning will fix everything, and that participation in early childhood education is fabulous, but when we actually ask questions about what is going on in education, there are some very concerning issues. So during the reviews, both this review and every other review that I have participated in, the Opposition MPs Tracey Martin and Chris Hipkins—whom I have been very pleased to work with—and I have consistently asked questions about what is really going on behind the glossy picture, and, no matter how many times the Government has said it is putting more money in, the figures that are beneath that show serious cuts at the front line.

Yesterday I was at James Cook High School, supporting school support staff. An absolutely sterling job is going on in that school with some of the children who suffer some of the most difficult circumstances in this country, and it was obvious that the education system is not able to meet the needs of these students. It was obvious that school support staff are badly understaffed and badly paid and are experiencing extreme stress. They are stressed because the teachers are stressed, because the students are stressed, because we are now in an education system that is probably more unequal than it has been since the Victorian era, and it is disturbing to see it.

Early childhood education is the place I would like to start. Early childhood education—the emphasis on participation. At every select committee hearing on the annual reviews, I have asked the Minister’s people: “What about quality?”. There is no point in talking about early childhood education participation if you are talking about baby barns, with one untrained childcare worker trying to take care of five babies. That is the reality in the wonderful participation figures—one person, five babies. That is disgraceful, and it is a direct consequence of the cuts to qualification and the requirement to have a limited group size, which has all gone out the window and into the wonderful new franchise called the privatisation of early childhood education.

The compulsory sector should not follow this model—it is a disturbed model and a disturbing model—but we have many problems in the compulsory sector. Every year I have asked about national standards. They are standards that are neither national nor standard. They are standards where there has been considerable research—not only from the Programme for International Student Assessment—that shows that literacy is not improving. So if it was all about improving compulsory sector - age children’s literacy, it is not working. National standards are something that were forced upon teachers by this Government. They do not like it, because it does not work. If you want to know what works in education, talk to teachers and talk to students.

I could go on at considerable length about some of the other failings in the education system, but one of the ones that has been the most disturbing—and the glossy annual reports do not tell the story—is that in terms of students with diverse learning needs, the system is broken. I instituted, with the support of my colleagues, an inquiry at the select committee into what is happening with that system. The annual reviews talk about all these wonderful consultations and all this effort that has gone into producing websites while 9-year-old children can be expelled from four schools and, because of a lack of school support, cannot get even an hour a day so that they can attend any school. This is the reality for people whose children have high learning needs, in far too many instances. There are some “magnet schools” doing a great job, but that is no thanks to the Government. This is an underfunded sector, and the children who could be succeeding are failing. It is a disgrace that we treat our most vulnerable diverse learners as expendable.

Set aside the rhetoric. The Government would not adopt my recommendations, or those of my colleagues, because it required some investment in money and a huge attitude change, and the first thing it required was honesty about education.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): I am very pleased to speak in this appropriations debate. This is my first day as the Minister of Education, and I want to start by just acknowledging my predecessor the Hon Hekia Parata. It is very important to acknowledge her. Every single year that we have been in Government, we have increased Vote Education, and she won that hard-fought-for cash in the middle of a global financial recession.

The numbers—regardless of what some people may be saying—in terms of funding are $8 billion to $11 billion. In terms of operational grant funding, we have seen the numbers go up by a third. In a range of areas, special education funding has doubled. That does not mean we do not have challenges, and I look forward to working with many members in this House around some of those challenges, but we certainly have increased Vote Education, and in some areas we have increased it very significantly.

I want to take you through some of the big areas of reform and say why they are important in terms of our results as a nation. We know that education can be the difference between a young person ending up in prison or a young person ending up in a great job, and what we saw when we first came in was a huge number of schools at an infrastructure level that were old, cold, and leaky. We have undertaken the largest ever capital infrastructure programme in this nation’s history. We are now spending $5 billion. We have spending a third more over that period than the Labour Government did, to ensure that our infrastructure is world class. This matters for learning because it does matter in terms of the environment that teachers and young people are in, so that is a very significant achievement.

In terms of raising achievement and raising the quality of teaching, I just want to walk you through that. It is about results. We totally understand that people will have different philosophical views on this. But, ultimately, if young people are not able to read and write and do maths, we know—we know from all of the statistics—that their chances of succeeding in a modern economy are much reduced. The fact is that under this Government, we now have more than 85 percent of young people leaving school with NCEA level 2, or equivalent, which is a massive lift. It is over 10.9 percent—that is thousands more kids who are leaving school with that qualification.

In terms of Māori and Pacific achievement, I want to just touch on the comments that Chris Hipkins made. It does matter—it really does matter—the fact that we have seen in some instances a 15 to 18 percent increase in achievement in terms of these young people leaving school without a qualification. We now have thousands more Māori and Pacific kids leaving school with a qualification. That is a very dramatic lift, but we have more to do, and I want to talk about where we have more to do.

Right across New Zealand—and we have heard from the Opposition that not all of those members are supportive around communities of learning—the fact is that half a million children are now in a community of learning. The fact is that we are working through with those communities of learning around their achievement challenges. I think it is a really positive development for New Zealand that we have groups of schools—rather than having a very competitive model—working together, looking at what the numeracy and literacy issues are and looking at areas like special education.

As Minister of Education, I will have the job of endorsing some of those achievement challenges, but the whole point is we now have better data than ever before and a more collaborative system to be able to help more children, whether it is in—as Catherine Delahunty has mentioned—the area of additional learning support and special education, or whether it is around numeracy and literacy. So there is a huge amount that is being done there.

In terms of the quality of our teachers, we know—and Mr Hipkins mentioned the Programme for International Student Assessment—one of the most significant things that we can do is to improve the quality of our teachers. I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for the establishment of the Education Council. It is crucial for teachers to be leading that debate around a number of these areas, whether it is professional development or whether it is the qualifications that are required to practise. I am really proud of the fact that we are having discussions with the Education Council in terms of professional development. The priorities are much clearer now—there are very clear priorities around things like digital fluency, but also numeracy and literacy. So there is a lot of work going on. Under our Government we are spending more and we are seeing greater results.

But there are challenges that lie ahead, and as Minister I am really looking forward to the next couple of months. We do have some potentially big decisions ahead of us. We have got a Budget that will be coming through. But I want to finish by saying—and I will have other calls—it is an absolute privilege to be the Minister of Education, and I look forward to working with many teachers and principals across New Zealand.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I want to address the $11 billion. The National Government continues to tell the New Zealand public that there has never been more funding for education before, because it is now at $11 billion. In this Budget there is—it is quite right—$10,792,273,000. That is right, absolutely right. What the Government does not tell you, unfortunately, is that in 2008 the Budget was $10,091,279,000—a $701 million difference over a 9-year period. You might say of a $701 million difference: “Wow, that’s amazing.”

Let us just be clear: in 2009 Anne Tolley put a price on leaky schools—the Minister has just mentioned leaky schools. It is important that when this Government says there is $11 billion in education, the suggestion is that that is being spent on children. The suggestion is that that is directly impacting the education of children, whether that be in more resources, whether that be in more teaching staff, or whether that be in lowering class sizes. We know that is not true, so where is that $701 million going? The price tag put on leaky schools—and let us remember who created the leaky building controversy—is $1.5 billion. So the increase that this Government is telling the New Zealand public about—“Wow, we’ve put this much more money into it.”—is going into property.

But it is not just going into the taxpayers’ property. For example, $61,600,000 has gone to the private property of integrated schools. Those are assets owned by the private proprietors of integrated schools. That is, $61,600,000 of this $11 billion has gone to those private assets.

Let us just talk about the fact of one of the largest private early childhood education providers in New Zealand. Its profit, before financial costs, went up by 121 percent in the last financial year—this Budget that we are talking about—and 82 percent of its business is Government business. So this private company had a 121 percent increase in profit because 82 percent of its money, which creates this profit, comes from the taxpayer—the taxpayers of New Zealand—out of this $11 billion. It had a profit margin of $32.9 million. This is why it is important, New Zealand: do not accept it when backbenchers of this Government say “We put in $11 billion.”—find out where that money is going.

Let us also be clear that $16,824,000 was spent on advice to the Minister, which is an increase of $5 million in this Budget alone; $1,000,624,628 was spent on property; $34 million was spent on services other than policy to the Minister; $761 million was spent on capital expenditure directly for the ministry—not for a school, but directly for the ministry; that is what is in this Budget—and $4,638,000 was actually to set up the Education Council. What is interesting about that is that that cost is now going to be shifted by this Government on to teachers. This Government set up the Education Council. We had the Teachers Council, but we wanted to remove the actual voting rights of teachers to have their own representatives there, so the Government set up the Education Council for $4,638,000. That will run out and is going to have to be paid for by the teaching staff of New Zealand, with a hundred-and-something percent increase in their actual fees to join that organisation, which they must join.

Let us also not forget the cuts that were made by this Government in 2009 before it started to build them back up again. New Zealand, you need to look backward before you decide to swallow the information that is being given to you.

The other reason why, and it is very interesting—this is an article that is from 1 April 2017. And why it actually works into this debate, Mr Chairperson, is that—this is a quote from this article, “The Figures Do Not Add Up, Minister”: “In Parliament, media releases and news reports, the Minister”—that was the then Minister Hekia Parata—“stated that ‘funding for schooling’ or ‘Vote Education’ had increased by 35 percent since 2008.”

Todd Barclay: That’s right.

TRACEY MARTIN: “The Minister”—sorry, that was Todd Barclay, if anybody is listening, who shouted out “That’s right.”—“later confirmed what many had assumed—her figures included everything in the education budget, not just what schools received. The 35 percent includes everything from ministry consultants to IES, charter schools, rolling out National Standards and school rebuilds and construction.” So let us be clear: do not swallow—[Interruption] Well, let us talk about charter schools. Let us talk about charter schools and the report that came through. I have here an article from 2 May that refers to the $14 million out of that Budget that has been spent on charter schools and to the comment from the Vanguard Military School chief executive, Nick Hyde, when he had to justify why $309,391 in 1 year was taken away from the educational dollar to fund over and above its payment to its principal for management services. He said that splitting that payment off to its management services—i.e., the company that he and his father had run before charter schools ever arrived. He said that by splitting that amount of money off, it led to further success, which included a 100 percent NCEA level 2 pass rate.

Let us read the report on the ministry by the Education and Science Committee: “We note a discrepancy between how partnership schools report on their NCEA results compared with other schools … We asked why the reporting differs for partnership schools. We heard that this is a technical issue. The ministry is investigating how to address it to provide a transparent and accurate picture of the pass rates. At present, partnership schools only know if a student has left the school, and not whether they have left the education system. This means the partnership school may incorrectly count a student as passing NCEA.” What that says is that there is no way to prove what partnership schools are talking about.

What is of even greater concern is that when a State school—and I have known three of them—has reported a 100 percent NCEA level 2 pass rate, the Education Review Office instantly goes in and does an investigation. How come not with a charter school? How come with a charter school we accept it, or we are supposed to accept it through a glossy brochure? These schools are funded to $14 million by the taxpayer, and we are supposed to accept them on face value. Minister Parata and David Seymour stood up and lauded that in this Chamber.

Let us also just remember that so far, of the original charter schools that are still open, around $10 million came out of this Budget alone for those charter schools. What about the Whangaruru money? We have still seen no recovery there. The Ministry of Education estimated—this is from an article in 2016—that the cost of Whangaruru School was $5.2 million. The farm itself, paid for by taxpayers’ dollars, was $1.38 million, and Minister Parata stood up in this House and said that the Ministry of Education was negotiating. Where are those negotiations, Minister? Where are those negotiations at, to get back either the $5.2 million originally funded for Whangaruru School or the $1.38 million that was used to purchased land or buildings, or even to get back the land for the New Zealand taxpayer? We have never heard about it, yet we are supposed to swallow quietly that this Government is funding education appropriately, when it squanders money—it squanders money—that is needed.

The worst thing is the cut of $42,000,908 that the appropriation provided to service individuals with special education and special needs. That was a cut from the last Budget to this Budget—$42 million—for the very children who we at the Education and Science Committee know need the greatest support, yet inside this appropriation there is a cut.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is an honour to be able to speak on this particular debate. Before I start my contribution, I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for her sterling 6 years as Minister of Education. Having had the privilege of working for her for 2½ years as well, I know that she is incredibly passionate about education and she has a lot to be proud of in the contribution that she has made as Minister of Education over the last 6 years. I also wanted to congratulate the Hon Nikki Kaye on being appointed as Minister of Education. I know she is equally as passionate about the prosperity of our young New Zealanders as the Hon Hekia Parata was, and I know she has worked incredibly closely with her, from chairing the select committee in our second term, right through to being an Associate Minister of Education, and now as the Minister. So we all wish her the best in her role.

I just wanted to correct a couple of points that have been raised by previous speakers in relation to the annual reviews. That is that under Vote Education there has been an increase of 35 percent since 2008, to the tune of $11 billion. It is about a fifth of the total Budget that is invested in Vote Education because it underscores the importance of that level of investment in the future of our young people. But it is not just throwing good money after bad each year; it is actually looking at seeing results. Each sector that receives money from the Government has to be accountable for the investment that is received. It is no different in the education sector than it is in the transport sector or the health sector or any other sector.

If you look at how the education sector is accountable to the taxpayer who invests in success, it is through achievement rates. If you look at our NCEA results, national standards, and the other reporting mechanisms, we have got a very good story to tell. We have had a significant increase in NCEA level 1, level 2, and level 3—right across the board—and, in particular, an increase in NCEA level 2 results for Māori and Pasifika. That is a credit to all of the people who work in the sector: the over 100,000 passionate educationalists who support the achievement of our young people. That is important because we need to be able to see that there is a clear line of sight from the investment that is put into Vote Education to the achievement results that come out the other end.

I have got 69 schools in my electorate. I have been to 62 of them—many of those I have been to more than once. It is really great hearing about the contributions that they are making, and the feedback from the level of investment that the Government is putting in across a range of programmes and how that is filtering through the system. If you look at the results that we are starting to see, they are not only because of things like national standards and the improvements to NCEA levels 1, 2, and 3 but also because the Government has made changes to the deployment of professional learning and development for staff, and other investments into the sector.

One of the points touched on by the Minister that was of interest to our select committee was the establishment of the Education Council as a result of the ministerial inquiry into sex offenders in schools, and the changes that were made to the former Teachers Council in the establishment of the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ). Dr Graham Stoop, as the new chief executive of that organisation, is best placed to lead that change through his collaboration with the chair, Barbara Ala’alatoa, and a number of other sector representatives who sit on that guiding body.

If you look at the education sector in New Zealand, it is incredibly complicated and complex, but it is actually riddled with choices as well. The member who previously spoke, Tracey Martin, underscored all of the flaws with charter schools, but we are fortunate in New Zealand to have a system that is full of diversity. We have got State schools, we have got State-integrated schools, we have got private schools, we have got Māori-medium schools, and we have got partnership schools. Quite frankly, if you do not want to send your kid to a partnership school, then do not—you do not have to. There is plenty of choice out there.

Those parents who do decide to send their children to partnership schools—it is largely because they have not had success in other aspects of the sector. So diversity is one of the remarkable things about the sector that we have in New Zealand, and it is something that is held in high regard by all of the comparative countries that we compare ourselves with across the OECD.

One of the final points that the Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, did before she finished in her role was to go overseas and speak about some of those achievements that we have. So it is great to be able to make a contribution.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to discuss the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill for the education and science sector. As a mother of two young daughters—one at primary school and one who has just started high school—I would like the best education for both of them. But can I say that, as an MP and as all MPs in this House, we have a responsibility to ensure the best education for every single child in Aotearoa New Zealand regardless of where they live, regardless of the socio-economic status of their parents, and regardless of their ethnicity. But as a result of National’s approach to education, all of our children in this country are not getting the education that they need and deserve.

The best indicator of a country’s economic and social success is its investment in education. However, when we look at the compulsory education sector there is a real disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from this current National Government and facts on schooling. As my colleague Chris Hipkins discussed earlier on, when we look at our international test scores for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) we have continued to decline. When we look at the 2006 results for reading, maths, and science, and we compare it to 2015, we are at the lowest, lowest level for PISA test scores.

I agree with a lot of the comments that my colleague Tracey Martin said about funding. We keep on hearing that there is a lot more investment in education, but when we look at per child funding for each child in this country for education, we know that it has decreased. We also know that over the last weekend the outgoing Minister of Education did not deny that the per student cost in education in this country has actually decreased.

This National Government tells us that it invests a lot more in education, but with a huge growth in population we expect there to be more investment in our children. But if you were to ask a teacher, a principal, or even a parent from schools from across New Zealand many of them will tell you that they are struggling to make ends meet at school, and parents are struggling to make ends meet to ensure that all of their children actually have school uniforms and school stationery.

Last year National made this even worse when it froze the operational school funding for every school; 1,300 schools across Aotearoa were affected by this, and can I say that for South Auckland and especially for Manukau East so many of my schools were affected by this. We are told that this new way of funding is supposed to be better, but how can it be better when we heard NZEI Te Riu Roa eloquently say that—and if I can just go back—this cut-price in funding is worth just “half a sandwich per child” a week. It is less than $2 a week per child. It is an outrage that this is what we are told is better funding for our children.

The consequence of the current funding is, actually, under-investment in education, and I will give you these three examples. When we look at teacher supply, we have a teacher supply crisis. Let us look at Auckland. Many of the schools in Auckland are struggling to find teachers, and many of the teachers in Auckland are now looking to move out of Auckland because they can no longer afford to live in Auckland and teach at the same time. When we look at support staff—we know that just yesterday a lot of members of Parliament shadowed support staff, and they saw, face to face, the struggles that our support staff are facing. Because support staff are supposed to be funded from operational grants, the very same operational grants that have been frozen, many of the schools are struggling to be able to afford to hire support staff or even to pay them what they are truly worth. When we look at parental contributions, Statistics New Zealand tells us that parental contributions across New Zealand have increased by 44 percent since this National Government took office. We must do better for every child across Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Science and Innovation): I want to talk about science, and science and innovation, which is part of the discussion today, in particular. I have just come from opening a conference for one of the National Science Challenges, Sustainable Seas - Ko ngā moana whakauka. “Moana” means oceans and “whakauka” means sustainable, or preserving to be long-lasting, and one of these National Science Challenges is about mission-led science, trying to answer problems that are relevant to us. So that mission is to enhance utilisation of our marine resources within the environmental and biological constraints—a very passionate bunch of scientists, sustained by our big investment in science, who are passionate people and very keen to better understand the seas and the oceans that sustain us in so many ways, but it also combined stakeholders from iwi and the many issue groups that are involved in the broader marine environment. It was a wonderful occasion.

I think when we just stand back and ask what we are trying to achieve in Government, much of what we are trying to achieve is around raising the living standards of New Zealanders, and we can do that by creating a stronger or more resilient economy that creates jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders, but we can also do it by delivering better public services for New Zealanders, such as in health or in education or in the many sectors that we work on to improve the quality of our lives through better public services. But that is not all of what Government is about. I see that a fundamental role for Government is about preserving and enhancing what is special about New Zealand. We often think of the quality of our physical environment, but that also extends to our way of life, our social cohesion, and our high levels of trust. Thirdly, Government is about raising living standards, it is about preserving and enhancing what is special about New Zealand, and it is also about New Zealand playing its role in the world.

When I think of the science investment that we have, that can contribute powerfully to each of those areas. World-class science can provide fresh ideas for our companies, for our start-ups, and for our entrepreneurs to enable them to compete successfully in global markets and deliver higher standards of living for all of us. World-class science can support evidence-based decision-making in our public sector, so that we can spend wisely in the education sector and so we can make sensible decisions about regulation affecting our oceans and the many things that we regulate, in the broadest sense of the word. Also, world-class science can help us preserve our national landscape, our water, our environment, and our oceans, fundamentally to help us better understand the world in which we live.

Finally, New Zealanders are not freeloaders. We do not just expect the rest of the world to do all the science and to just enjoy it. Our world-class science and innovators can help solve global problems and contribute to our global understanding of the human condition and the world in which we live. That is why we do continue to invest $1.3 billion a year in science, as we are looking at today as a result of previous Budget decisions, and we are on track to increase that to $1.6 billion annually by 2020.

We invest it right across the spectrum, from fundamental, inquirer-led science in the Marsden Fund and the Performance-based Research Fund, through to the universities, which are powerful contributors to this understanding, right through to mission-led science in the National Science Challenges, such as the Sustainable Seas challenge, but also challenges that are designed to deal with our biosecurity issues and the quality of our soil, as well as ageing well and many health issues. Science investment also extends to the capability building in our Crown research institutes so that when the world looks at us and thinks “Well what does New Zealand have to contribute to our global understanding?”—they expect us know a bit about earthquakes and the sorts of things that GNS Science focuses on. They expect us to know about the oceans, because we have got the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world, and we do have world-class scientists in that area. But also, our science investment extends to the encouragement of business R & D through the Callaghan Innovation growth grants. We have seen a very significant—about 27 percent—increase in business investment in R & D science and innovation over the last 2 years as a result of this encouragement. I am very pleased with the progress that we are making from our very substantial investment in science.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti nei. I am really worried about the future of education in New Zealand. Yesterday I attended a pōwhiri for four mokopuna from Mangawhero Te Kōhanga Reo, and they started at their new kura. What I worry about is the legacy that those tamariki, those mokopuna, inherit: a legacy of 8 years, coming into the ninth year, of this Government that has cut the budget, effectively, from the education system. It is a disgrace. It is not good enough. I worry about those tamariki, because here is the fact—and we have heard it in the House before. The fact is that there are 90,000 young people in this country who are not in education, not in employment, and not in training.

What kind of legacy does that leave for the tamariki, those mokopuna I went to support yesterday, for their education? I will tell you what it means. It means that they are reliant on the staff, the teachers, who have to go beyond what they would normally have to do because of the lack of funds, because this Government has frozen the operations grant. The report from the Education and Science Committee spells out the changes to the operations grant. The Government is effectively cutting 66 percent from what would be the increase in the operations grant for this year. That is not good enough. That tells us—it tells the whole country—that this is not a priority for the Government.

I will go on to add another dimension to this: NCEA results in charter schools. Here is a fact. It is in the report. There is a technical issue around how charter schools add up who has passed and who has not. They add them up differently from State-run schools. What does that tell us? If you do not like the results, just change the way you add it up—that is what it says to me: “If you really want to cut 66 percent out of the funds that should have gone as increases to the operations grant, just add it up a different way. Formulate a new way of distributing those funds.” The Government has found that way. That is just not good enough. Those mokopuna who started kura yesterday deserve better than that. I am here, in this appropriations debate, really disappointed with this Government that it has seen fit to take this course of action, or, as I would like to put it, inaction. It is deceitful. It is a way of confusing people around the true amount and value that this Government is putting into education.

That is the main point that I want to state here in this Chamber this afternoon. I have spoken to principals at a number of schools, and they talk about the struggle that they have in coping with not having enough money. Of course, that is not a new issue, but they tell me that this is an issue that is unprecedented. I am talking about principals who have been in schools for long periods of time. They have been principals of schools for up to 15 or 20 years, and they understand the dynamics of how this works. Some of the schools do not have the opportunity to insist on donations from parents. I put a big mihi out to parents as well, along with those teaching staff and non-teaching staff who were acknowledged yesterday, because those operational funds are just not enough for schools to be able to fund those positions properly. Kia ora.

Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I rise to speak today on the annual review of the Ministry of Education. I do want to concentrate particularly on the Ministry of Education and the appearance of the ministry before the Education and Science Committee to answer our questions. I want to begin by congratulating Hekia Parata on a stellar time as Minister of Education, completely driven to change achievement—we asked in the committee a number of questions about achievement; I will go into that little further—and welcoming the Hon Nikki Kaye to the role. It is a tough role, but it is one that really matters. I go round the schools in my electorate and they are talking about the same things that our committee asked in this annual review. They tell me that they understand that what we want is the best education for the students who are going to school. We want the most young people engaged in education, and that, in fact, again, was one of the questions that we put to the committee.

I was a little disturbed to hear other committee members talking about the total budget and the apparently shrinking budget—when we on the side of the House know it is simply not shrinking—but also alluding to, perhaps, a separation of where the money is spent. It is just incredible to think that members cannot take the whole of education as one and understand that there needs to be a ministry and there needs to be school buildings that the children are taught in, that they experience education in. So to suggest that we should look at those parts of education aside just seemed incredible to me. Buildings did not matter, and the ministry staff did not either—so policy advice. Well, that is an interesting one.

In terms of some of the areas that I particularly want to touch on, one is the COLs—this is the communities of learning, kāhui ako. What we have seen, and what was reported to the committee, is that now 67 percent of schools—roughly 67 percent of schools—are engaged in COLs. I know in my own electorate there are a number of COLs, and, in fact, I am starting to hear the stories about that really working. The engagement by the leading principals—what we have across the country is 52 leaders, and we asked why it had to be principals, and we were told that largely they were the best people to be the leaders. In fact, there are two COLs that have people other than principals as leaders. There are about 1,500 schools, we were told, now involved in COLs, and, of course, a significant investment on the part of the Government—or the taxpayers of New Zealand, really—in the COLs and in what that can mean. The stories that I am hearing and that we were told were around the leadership that is addressing the specific issues within those schools.

I did also want to mention, while I am on my feet, something that, again, seems to have been lost in translation when other members have stood to raise these issues. There was an extra $15.3 million spent in this last year on helping an extra 1,250 students get extra teacher-aides. Those are the facts, not the rhetoric from the comms. Those are the facts.

The other thing is that the operations grant has gone up by 16 percent, and this last year we listened to the principals who said: “I’ve got tough kids in this school—really needy kids in this school—yet you’re just giving a blanket increase to the schools where they don’t have anywhere near as many of those tough kids.” So that is why the operations grant went to the schools where the students had been identified as the most needy. One third of the schools went up. One third of the schools stayed the same. Because they had fewer of those students, one third went down; so 15 schools actually missed out altogether. Now those are the facts about the operations grant this year. So to hear it represented as anything other than that from the other side of the House—oh well, maybe that is the comms and research on the other side of the House. However, what we know is that principals say to us: “Please recognise there are students in our schools who need more help than other students. Please focus extra funding on them.” And that is the way it was done during this last year. So that is why.

At the same time, we hear complaints and we did talk very briefly about early childhood education in the committee. We talked about the revisiting of the curriculum, and that has now, of course, come to pass. The draft was out for consultation at the time. So that is what happened in the annual review.

Reports noted.

Environment Sector

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to address the issue of fresh water. The annual review for the Ministry for the Environment is before me—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I am just going to interrupt the member, and I am not going to take the call off him. I am going to say that I did look to the chair of the committee to take a call and he chose not to. I just want to put on the record that the Hon Scott Simpson is the chair of the committee until 9 o’clock in the morning.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I was not trying to gazump anyone, either. I was just worried that the vote would pass if no one took a call. Of course, there is something to be said in respect of fresh water, which is that 8 years after this Government took office, fresh water quality still declines in so many of our waterways. Seventy percent of monitored waterways have increasing nitrate levels. We increasingly see pictures in the newspapers of rivers that are so polluted in summer—which is the time when people swim in our rivers, in summer—not only are they not safe enough to swim in, dogs die if they lap up water that contains some of the toxic algae.

We have got the medical officer of health in South Canterbury telling mothers not to feed their babies bottled milk made out of the water that comes out of their taps that is drawn from bores. We have got some serious problems with water quality. We discussed this with the Secretary for the Environment from the Ministry for the Environment. We also discussed a petition that we are considering around fresh water as well, which leads me to focus a little on the latest controversies in New Zealand, which have been the very belated moves by the Government to have a standard somewhat higher than wadeability for some of our waterways.

The Government got so panned for its ambition for waterways being set at the wadeable level that it thought that it would do something. The wadeable standard, effectively, meant you could walk through a river but you could not swim in it without having a serious risk of getting crook. The position in the Labour Party has for a long time been that we should have swimmability as our minimum standard for rivers, except where natural events render them unswimmable.

For a long time, the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, said that was an impossible ideal, and he quoted ridiculous examples like floods—well, no one swims in their rivers in floods—and the acid wash of some of the volcanic areas increasing acid levels in rivers. And I think the third example he used was bird droppings and the Ashburton River, because there were birds that nested on the banks of the river. All of them were ridiculous because we are not trying to have those rivers made swimmable; we just do not want rivers degraded below swimmable by human intervention.

So the Government came out a couple of months ago with this proposed change to the national policy statement to up the levels a little bit, and they tried to pretend that this was to a swimmable standard. What were some of the problems with that? I will not use just my own comments, I will use some of what—just about the only environmental NGO left on the Land and Water Forum (LAWF)—the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) submitted recently. Others have pulled out of the Land and Water Forum because they have been so abused by the Government through that process—namely Fish & Game and, recently, Forest & Bird, as well as Federated Mountain Clubs. This is what EDS, which is still in it, said. They said they “do not support how these concepts that have been approved by Land and Water Forum have been incorporated in the proposed standard on swimmability”. It says the “consultation document has taken the LAWF’s recommendations, manipulated them, and watered them down”. That is one of the Land and Water Forum’s own participants.

Then it goes through some of the problems with it. It notes that there are not appropriate controls on increasing nitrates where you have a river that is found to be degrading, as evidenced by the little bugs in it—the macroinvertebrates—that sit on the bottom of the rivers, dying away. There is nothing in the standard that makes you stop doing that. I think one of the obvious examples is in respect of slime—periphyton is how it is described in the document; and yet there is no adequate control on excessive rates of periphyton—slime growth—caused by nutrient enrichment or by artificially decreased flows, which, of course, are caused by irrigation.

Perhaps the two worst of them all—one is that National says it wants 90 percent of rivers cleaned up. But that 90 percent includes all of the rivers in our national parks; they are not the ones that need to be cleaned up. It should be the ones that are running through agricultural areas where there is intensive agriculture. The final, and perhaps worst, one is that it is going to exclude test results that are adverse 20 percent of the time. Twenty percent of the time would be from Christmas to 1 March, which is the summer period, which makes the standard ridiculous.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would like to continue in the same vein as my colleague David Parker on fresh water. I did not have the privilege of sitting in on the Local Government and Environment Committee during the Ministry for the Environment presentation, but I have read its report, and I feel sorry for it. I actually feel really sorry for it, because it is meant to be the Ministry for the Environment. But on fresh water, as well as some of the other responsibilities that it has, it is a sad story.

I have just been touring the country. I have now visited eight out of the 10 rivers that I am visiting in communities, and at each one of these rivers there is a story to tell—Mataura is my next one—about degradation, which is reflected in the failure of the Government to allow the Ministry for the Environment to actually set standards that are coherent, that work, and that protect water.

You would think that the vision of the Ministry for the Environment would be healthy rivers, healthy lakes, an ecosystem that is in balance, and water that is truly fresh and is actually safe for children to swim in, actually safe for kai gathering, where native fish could live, where tuna would be thriving, where the pH would be in balance, and where the biodiversity would be lush. This is what some of us remember of rivers, but now our lowland rivers, under the auspices of this Government and this ministry, are so degraded that the ministry’s own report last week is a record of failure.

In the annual review, the ministry talks about its long-term outcome for water being the capacity for the environment to sustain itself being safeguarded. Well, it is not doing it. Its own report from last week contradicts this, and says that the river water quality—sometimes it says 55, sometimes it says 78—is so damaged by nitrogen that it fails to meet the most basic of standards, and that the river water quality is worsening. It is not stable. It is not improving. It is worsening.

However, its next goal tells you why. The Ministry for the Environment’s next goal is the use of the environment, including natural resources, to optimise for the betterment of society and the economy—blah, blah, blah, blah. So we are not going to protect water; we are going to maximise its use. It goes on to say that one of its performance measures—you are going to love this one—for protecting the environment is an increase in the number of hectares under Government-subsidised irrigation. Well, it has certainly met that key performance indicator, with the Government subsidising of central plains water. If any of you have seen the state of Canterbury’s rivers, there are canals, there are drains, and then there are rivers that no longer look like rivers. They look like puddles of algae, or half the time they are dry—not to the same extent as is natural; this is unnatural, from over-allocation.

This ministry and this Government have overseen the over-allocation of rivers, the subsidisation of vast irrigation schemes that have stripped our water from our communities, the ludicrous announcement for the clean water plan that no scientist understands—and now the Government is having to rush out another set of analysis and statistics to try to explain itself to the science community. This is the fresh water performance of the ministry and the Minister.

The people of this country have had enough. It is the one issue now. When I get into taxis, taxi drivers are telling me: “2040, that’s not very visionary for clean water, is it?”. People on aeroplanes are asking what is going on with the Government and water. I was in a cafe in Kerikeri, and there were two very conservative-looking blokes saying: “Oh, the greenies have got a point. The farmers are ruining our environment.” I am not here to blame the farmers. I am saying the Government is responsible for setting low standards, allowing pollution, maximising profit at the expense of water, and ignoring the tangata whenua and their proprietorial rights guaranteed under the Treaty, because it does not want to face up to the fact that we can have sustainable agriculture and clean water, but the model has to change.

This annual review is sad, because it is an inbuilt contradiction between protecting water and exploiting it.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking in this appropriations debate, because this is a very important issue to New Zealand, as a number of speakers have already alluded to. I think the debate we have been having is around water quality, which is part of it, and I am going to come back to that in a minute, but also what the Government is doing around climate change and what we are doing around conservation.

I am particularly proud to be able to stand here as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, but also as a Bluegreen and someone locally who has done some of this work in his electorate, with what we are seeing with what is going on with—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to get the member to sit down for a second and say that it is really important in these debates, when it comes to titles, that people are factual. I think there is a minor thing called “an election” to happen before the member can claim the title.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of the three areas that we are talking about, water is the one where there has been a bit of a discussion. I think some of the reforms that the Government has put in place over the last 12 months have been absolutely revolutionary, in terms of what we are trying to do with the environment and with water claims.

What we have heard today is we have heard a number of people talking about what is going to happen around water, with the degradation of the water quality. In fact, I would like to remind you that we are now having this debate because the Government has put in place the measurement around water courses, so we actually know what the quality of water is. If we did know what the quality of water was, as we have for so many years, we would not actually be having a lot of the discussions. We have actually put in place these measurements, and we are requiring councils to measure them on an ongoing basis. That is a great start point in terms of trying to remediate some of the adverse waterways that we have in New Zealand. It is not just in the rural areas; it is also in the urban areas. At least it is an honest conversation. I do just want to acknowledge the $500 million that the dairy industry and the Government has put into cleaning up the waterways, and the further $100 million that was committed earlier this year, which are all good things, because we all believe in cleaner waterways.

I want to also just touch on the wonderful work that Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett is doing in the area of climate change. I think the change this year—not only in terms of signing the Marrakesh Agreement, which has been a great thing to set in motion. New Zealand was at the forefront of signing that agreement, and to see a 30 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 is great. I also thank her move to reduce the two for one on the emissions trading scheme, which, again, has been a courageous and good move, and a good steer for New Zealanders to know which way we are headed—towards minimising our carbon emissions. Also, the work that all parties played in the GLOBE International report that has recently been announced about how we are dealing with issues around climate change and reducing our footprint, not only in the areas of forestry and how they can mitigate some of those, but also a number of other factors that were raised by that very valuable report. I do commend all members of the House in terms of the work that they did in that area.

The final area is the area of the Hon Maggie Barry, particularly in the area of conservation—this is fundamental to New Zealand, protecting our fauna and flora. I think her work, in terms of giving the life and the money to actually pursue some of the fundamental protections we want to put in place, is absolutely to be valued. Her War on Weeds and protection of our bird species—they are both very credible, strong, and good initiatives, in terms of some of what we are trying to protect. Obviously, the kiwi is absolutely important to New Zealand, but some of the other very important birdlife that we have in New Zealand—the takahē and things like that—some of those programmes are wonderful, and I fully endorse them. Then we get on to the War on Weeds, Maggie’s list of ten—it has been fantastic in terms of trying to reduce these invasive weeds. Again, that conservation is really, really important to New Zealand. We all have a right to make sure that these species are removed from our environment, and we move to a situation where New Zealand can justifiably continue to be proud of its credentials as a wonderful place to live, in terms of protecting our birdlife. I just think the work that has been very comprehensive over the last year and going forward is a valuable contribution to New Zealand.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is a pleasure to take a call on this annual review for the Ministry for the Environment. When the ministry came to the Local Government and Environment Committee, according to the report—I was not present at the select committee—the chief executive told the committee that climate change is, perhaps, the global issue of our time. When you then look through the report of what the Government is doing, you would hardly recognise that that is indeed the fact. The initiatives that the previous speaker outlined simply are not enough. They are not going to get us to reach our low emissions target that we placed on the table in Paris, and they are not putting us on a pathway of doing our bit in the global initiatives around climate change. Nor are they about putting our economic security at the fore in terms of us doing our bit to reduce our domestic greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the things that the report makes absolutely clear is that agriculture will continue to be excluded from the emissions trading scheme. That is something that this Government will not act on, and until it does act on that, we have absolutely no chance of reaching our greenhouse gas emission target, so I would like Government members to reflect on that when they talk about the wonderful work that their Government is doing in climate change. There is still much to be done.

One of the big issues in the report that is covered off is one that colleagues have already addressed, and that is around fresh water. It is something that a great proportion of the report covers off, and it is no wonder, because when the ministry came to give its annual review to the select committee, it talked about the 6,000 people who had submitted during the ministry’s Next steps for fresh water process.

Fresh water is something that New Zealanders care about. I think most of us have childhood memories of picnicking and holidaying near a river somewhere in this country. It is the stuff of the Kiwi Dream. I know for myself that Coes Ford, just out of Christchurch, was an incredibly important place for my family and me recreationally. That place no longer exists. That river does not exist anymore. It is a dried up area of land where no one would picnic, no one would holiday, and, certainly, where families would not go to recreate, and that is what is driving New Zealanders, in droves, to take this kind of interest in fresh water.

We hear Government members talking about the wonderful initiatives around that, but the fact of the matter is that, according to Nick Smith, rivers can exceed the already high limit for E.coli 20 percent of the time and still be graded as good quality for swimming. That is not good enough. That is not what we think about when we think about doing what we need to in this country to protect our heritage, to protect our rivers, and to ensure that we have swimmable rivers for future generations.

You just need to look at the Government’s broader approach to fresh water and you can see that there is no action. It has been put in the too-hard basket. The can has been kicked down the road and left for another Government to pick up—and it will be a Labour-led Government after 23 September that will pick up these issues.

The issue of water bottling is absolutely critical here. We have had the Minister for the Environment spinning on the head of a pin about how it does not matter, but to ordinary New Zealanders the fact that there are companies coming in, bottling our water that we can never get back, and selling it for a profit that New Zealand does not see any return from is not something that New Zealanders see as desirable or good for their environment.

We should not be letting multinationals come in and take our water for free, and letting them sell it for millions, but this is something that Bill English and the National Government are content to do. It is not something that a Labour Government would be content to do. We charge royalties on all kinds of resources when companies come in and extract them. For goodness’ sake! We charge a royalty on gravel when a company comes in and extracts gravel—but we do not on this most precious of resources, our fresh water.

This Government’s attitude to the environment is just indicative of its attitude to the future of New Zealand as a whole. It is kicking the can down the road. It is not making the hard decisions that need to be made and standing up for the kind of future that we want for New Zealand. These things are hugely important to New Zealanders, both now and in the future.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics): For the last couple of years, it has been my very great pleasure to chair the Local Government and Environment Committee. Over that period of time I have had an opportunity to see, firsthand and close-up, the terrific work that this Government has been doing in terms of environment, conservation, and protection of our natural environment.

This year the committee considered annual reviews from the Department of Conservation. We had the director-general, Mr Lou Sanson, appear before the committee. We reviewed the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Environmental Protection Authority, and the Ministry for the Environment. I commend to members of the House and members of the public the reports that the committee has prepared following those annual reviews, because they encompass very clearly the broad policy issues and initiatives being taken by this Government in a very important area to all New Zealanders.

We see from the Department of Conservation, for instance, an excellent initiative about predator-free New Zealand: predator-free New Zealand by 2050. A few years ago, if people had been mentioning the concept or the visionary aspirational goal of a predator-free New Zealand, many people would have said that that simply was not possible—that it was a task too far, and something that no Government and no New Zealander could realistically seek to achieve. The Government’s initiative in this area has been, I think, incredibly empowering, and so we have set out an agenda, a plan, like our “Apollo mission”, if you want to put it that way, that means we are going to give this our best shot. In electorates like mine, the Coromandel, predators are wreaking enormous havoc every hour, every day, every week, every month of the year.

I have had an opportunity to visit, on a number of occasions, some of the predator-free islands, some of the predator-free sanctuaries, around the country. In fact, not too long ago I had an opportunity to visit, with the Minister, the Hon Maggie Barry, the Subantarctic Islands. What a wonderful privilege that was—to go to a part of New Zealand that very few New Zealanders get to visit and to have a firsthand, close-up experience of what a predator-free mainland might look like.

Members might be interested to know that the navy do a terrific job. They take people down there a couple of times every year. There is no permanent human habitation there. You get into these Zodiac boats; it is very James Bond-ish. You land on the islands. We were on Enderby Island. The first thing that happens when you land on that island and they turn off the engines of the Zodiac craft is you hear predator-free before you see it. The birdsong is immediately obvious and apparent. It is a wonderful experience. For me, the vision and aspirational hope that New Zealand could be predator-free by 2050 is an enormously worthy goal.

I want to spend just a second talking about climate change. Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett is, I think, doing a terrific job in this area. I have been privileged also to be an executive member of the Globe organisation. We, as a group of cross-party politicians, members of Parliament from this legislature, I think have been doing some good collaborative work in this area. So I was delighted to hear, just this very afternoon, that the Minister, in conjunction with the Hon Steven Joyce, has announced that the Productivity Commission will be instructed to conduct an inquiry into pathways that can help us as a nation to achieve our Paris commitments ahead of time preferably, and certainly in a way that is not going to wreak havoc on our economy. Those two objectives are not binary. It is not either/or. We can achieve our Paris commitments, and we can do it without detrimentally affecting our economy.

The Local Government and Environment Committee is a great committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as chair of that committee. Subject to an election this Thursday, I hope that my friend and colleague the member of Parliament for Hunua, Andrew Bayly, will assume that role. I know that he too will enjoy the job and, should he be elected, he will find it as invigorating and as interesting as I have. He will match the good work that this Government is doing in terms of the environment, conservation, and the protection of our natural heritage.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Two of the early actions that could easily be taken to improve New Zealand’s environment and to allow progress with climate change objectives under the Paris Agreement are to massively increase and improve New Zealand’s water management, and an early start to a huge new programme of afforestation in New Zealand.

I want to say, first of all, that New Zealand First deplores the Government’s lack of action on fresh water. The simple redefinition of what constitutes clean water hardly takes us very far and is, at best, irrelevant and at worst, retrograde. We want to do some rather more important things, and the first of those is that we say the current “first in, first served” approach to the allocation of water rights in New Zealand, under the Resource Management Act, is well past its use-by date and we need to do something better. We believe in a much more strategic approach, and we want to see a New Zealand water strategy developed for that purpose.

Rights to take and use water must only be available to New Zealand citizens and New Zealand fully owned companies. We do not think water should be taxed or subjected to any other financial imposition. We think that is not necessary. It is already very expensive for people to take water, whether it is for urban use or for agriculture or irrigation. We do not want to see that made more expensive. But when fresh water is exported in either a pure state or a substantially pure state, we want to see a royalty charged on that. We think that royalty should be developed on a region-by-region basis, in consultation with each region concerned, and that at least 25 percent of that royalty should stay in the region from which the royalty is derived and be used exclusively for the purposes of economic development and job creation.

New Zealand First also wants to see the special character of New Zealand’s wild and scenic rivers preserved. That is most important. They are at risk, and they continue to be at risk. We agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who recommends clearly identifying and listing them, and then adopting specific policies for their protection. We think that is the right way to go. Of course, we do need to move much faster to avoid the pollution of our waterways, which a lot of people are very concerned about at the moment. But it does need to be said that these apply to both urban and rural waterways. While there are many more rivers in the rural areas, the amount of pollution in urban areas is far greater, and that is actually an even more urgent requirement than the need to protect rivers in rural areas.

New Zealand First wants to see much more assistance given to cities and towns to achieve a much greater level of protection for their waterways, through better waste water treatment and better drainage facilities. New Zealand First also wants to see much greater attention paid to afforestation in New Zealand. We want to see a reliance on just exporting logs, and for there to be a much greater emphasis on using wood in New Zealand for manufacturing purposes. That can be done through Government leadership and incentives. We do not see that in any of the Government’s programmes, and that is something that is urgently required.

We actually think the Government should adopt New Zealand First’s targets, and those are, first, to increase the value of New Zealand’s wood exports from currently around $5 billion to $12 billion by the year 2022; secondly, to reverse the dismal rate of replanting of forestry in New Zealand, and we think that can be hugely increased and it should be done urgently; and, lastly, to contribute to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas targets by replanting a billion hectares of the 13 billion hectares of marginal land in New Zealand, which is ripe for the replanting of forests, which have so many advantages for regional economies, tackling climate change, and improving water and soil quality.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Although I do not sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee, I have read the report and want to make a number of comments on the annual review of the Department of Conservation (DOC).

In 2013 the department undertook a significant reorganisation, a restructuring, and some time down the track we now have the opportunity to look back and say: “Well, what was achieved?”. There are three areas where we can see there was a certain theme that was led as a result of the restructuring—firstly, a greater reliance on private sector investment for some core activities within the department; secondly, some delegation of functions to the community for some core responsibilities of the department; and, thirdly, a lack of strategic oversight on some of the main drivers that will impact on our conservation estate, namely tourism.

I want to just look at a couple of those themes and make a comment, knowing that we can be very proud of our conservation estate and what it means to New Zealand and the identity of our country and the brand proposition it offers in terms of being clean and green and having the plethora of biodiversity that makes us proud to be a little country doing our bit to protect the very special aspects of our natural flora and fauna and the biodiversity that exists therein.

On the issue of partnerships, I wanted to pull a comment out from the report that highlights the amount of effort that the Department of Conservation is now putting in to partnerships for third-party, private sector funding and the types of relationships that are starting to be forged with companies like Air New Zealand and Meridian Energy. Although I applaud the efforts, it does concern me that Vote Conservation, which is for core activities, is being supplemented by this type of approach, and we need to consider whether that is achieving—to the best advantage possible for the conservation estate—our aspirations.

In the area of Treaty settlements in particular, more partnerships are being sought with the Department of Conservation. We can only look positively towards the template that Tūhoe has set with its activities, having seconded around about 25 DOC people into its organisation to better manage Te Urewera. But the matter of concern is what innovations have come as a result of that to apply to the rest of the conservation estate, knowing that there are around about 58 relationships with iwi and around about 50 settlements that have specific obligations in this space. It seems to me that what can be gained is an improvement of DOC mātauranga ā-iwi in the way that it applies its practices in the area of biodiversity and the protection of the conservation estate and working, I think, more productively with the community. So one of the areas that Tūhoe will highlight that may be of benefit to us overall is the way in which they want to look at minimising the impact of 1080 in their special areas and lifting the opportunity for local employment and creating a trade out of possum control.

Moving on to the issue of managing biodiversity, I just note that it is really encouraging to see in the species recovery area the improvement of species such as kākāpō, takahē, and kokako, and the effort that DOC has put in to getting those bird species to a sustainable level, and I encourage that. I am concerned, however, that we are waiting for a report around the protection of the longfin eel. In my electorate there is no customary taking of eel within the Waikato and the Maniapoto parts of our rohe for the very belief that we should be doing as much as we can to protect eel species. However, commercial eeling is still taking place. So in my mind the sooner we can get that report through and the sooner that the freshwater fisheries regulations can take a serious look at protecting the eel species and promoting, maybe, alternatives like aquaculture as a real option, then that would be welcome in communities like mine.

I note that the chair spoke around Predator Free 2050. The issue there—and it is an ambitious goal and I applaud the fact that it is an ambitious goal—is the fact that DOC itself said that the $28 million that was applied over 4 years is somewhat short; it in fact costed that at $3 billion if we were going to really achieve the obligation of a predator-free New Zealand by 2050.

So there are many things yet to be achieved within the DOC portfolio. I have highlighted some of the concerns. I think more can be done.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I want to focus on just one aspect of the annual report, and that is to do with climate change, which has become a theme from colleague Andrew Bayly, and then Dr Megan Woods, Scott Simpson, Denis O’Rourke, and others. I just want to make a couple of points.

Looking at the annual report, page 335, I think it was Dr Megan Woods who said: “The chief executive told us that climate change is ‘perhaps the global issue of our time’ ”. I would actually make a separate, different comment, and that is that she magnificently understated it. That is not to say that we do not highly regard the chief executive and the Secretary for the Environment and her deputies—they are all extremely competent and capable public servants. But that is a gross understatement. Compare it with the statement by the UN Secretary-General a year earlier at his climate summit on 24 September 2014 that humanity has never faced a greater challenge. That is a sentence we should be rallying around: humanity has never faced a greater challenge. The dreams of humanity hang in the balance. “To ride this storm we need all hands on deck.”

If we take that as our departure point throughout this Chamber—all 121 members of Parliament on behalf of the 4.5 million whom we represent—then we are in the business of taking climate change seriously, with a recognition of the imperative of urgency. On that basis, I think it is incumbent on all of us to move forward purposefully and collaboratively while contesting each other’s ideas and challenging our different parties’ views of where we should be going, or, rather, having agreed where we should be going, we challenge each other on the pace and the particular path that we take. That I think is what is underpinning the cross-party group that is GLOBE-NZ, of which Scott Simpson—and others—has been a tremendously constructive and supportive and influential member of the executive committee. It underpins the theme with which I think we in GLOBE-NZ are pursuing climate change policy now.

Two particular points: Scott Simpson mentioned the release this afternoon by the Hon Paula Bennett, climate change Minister, and the Hon Steven Joyce, the finance Minister, about the Productivity Commission. I think that is an extremely welcome development, where they now say that the next step in the climate change work programme will enable us to properly assess the economic trade-offs and we need the Productivity Commission to tell us the right path to go down. In the press release the Ministers actually say that this complements the work undertaken by the parliamentary cross-party group GLOBE-NZ and I wish to thank the Minister for that and respond that I am sure GLOBE-NZ will take a particular interest in that. That does not mean that we will stop calling upon the Government to consider seriously the establishment of an independent climate committee, which is a different thing again, with far broader powers of recommendation and advice to the Government for a macro-economic approach to climate change.

Finally, to address another issue and that is climate-related investment, which does not get enough attention as much as it should. There is the latest global climate index 2017, which has been put out by a French-based official agency in advance of the G20 meeting in July, which rates New Zealand’s Superannuation Fund at No. 15, which you could be disposed to say is an excellent record. Or which you could be disposed to say could do with some improvement, because if we look at the fact that there are 14 other sovereign wealth funds or pension funds ahead of us, we can do better. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Tiamana o Te Komiti, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema. Can I begin my contribution to this Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill debate by thanking and congratulating the two previous members from the Opposition who spoke. Often during these appropriations debates we have a lot of political invective, but I thought both made very thoughtful, well-considered contributions, and whilst not agreeing with every single thing, I noted that they actually did pay tribute to some of the work that this Government is doing, and, I think, doing very successfully in this space.

Before going on to climate change issues, I do want to touch on some of these big battles that have been fought in the conservation estate. My colleague, now the Associate Minister for the Environment, the Hon Scott Simpson, whom I had the pleasure of serving under for 2 years in the Local Government and Environment Committee, did touch on this. If we look at page 307 of the compiled reports of committees, we will see the conservation report, and that covers such things as the Battle for our Birds, which we have heard about. We have heard about the War on Weeds, and that includes everything from old man’s beard, which David Bellamy highlighted back in the 1980s, through to the wandering willie, which is a threat not only in the world of weeds but, it seems, wandering willie does beset the Labour Party from time to time as well.

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

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Te Tiamana. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As I was saying before I was interrupted by the dinner break, the issue of weeds in New Zealand is something that this Government is addressing with the $16 million to control wilding pines but also the funding that we have provided for the War on Weeds, weeds such as old man’s beard—

Hon Simon Bridges: Must go.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —and the dreaded wandering willie, which also must go.

I want to move from the Department of Conservation appropriations to our progress that we are making in climate change issues. I refer specifically to page 318 of the tabulated reports of select committees, the report on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority review. There are significant programmes in the areas of fuel efficiency. I want to congratulate all the Ministers involved, particularly the Hon Simon Bridges, who has been a real driver of electric cars, I have to say. We are seeing a programme being rolled out that will lead to some of New Zealand’s leading companies committing to having 30 percent of their fleet turned to electric over the next couple of years. We are talking companies along the lines of The Warehouse and Fonterra, some of the very big employers that have very large vehicle fleets. This will make significant inroads into our objective to double the number of electric vehicles on our roads to 64,000 in the near future. This will contribute to the Government being able to achieve our goal by the year 2030 of a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions below 2005 levels. 2030 may sound like a distant time in the future, however, it is only 13 short years away, and with some of the technological innovations and the sensible and wise policies of this Government, as are laid out in the committee reports, we will make, I think, a lot of headway towards achieving those targets and reducing our carbon dioxide emissions in New Zealand.

I also just briefly want to touch on agricultural emissions. The $20 million investment in our sustainable agriculture programme, and having seen the research they are doing at Massey University—

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the Committee report progress presently and move to consider the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.

Progress to be reported presently.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 11 April.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When we were last considering the bill, we were debating clauses 1 and 2. Clayton Mitchell has the call, and he has 1 minute and 18 seconds remaining if he so wishes.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I so wish, Mr Chair. It was a great pleasure to have a break and have a bite to eat and come back after dinner. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill is taking a rapid trajectory through this House at the moment and, despite the other parties seeming to have their heads in the sand, there are a lot of concerns out there in the real world with how this bill is actually going to manifest itself. The first thing that I would like to put forward from New Zealand First is that we would like to see clause 2, with regard to the commencement date, have 29 February 2018. I think this is a far more appropriate time for this bill to actually be implemented, because, of course, 29 February next year does not exist.

Of course the commencement and the title are very important. Currently, we have got the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I think this bill would be suited more to be called the “Fire and Emergency and Revenue Collecting New Zealand Bill”, because the new bill makes sure that the Fire Service actually gets to do what the Inland Revenue Department should be doing. It is collecting revenue to run their organisation, which is not what was or should be part of any ministry’s position to ensure they get positive outcomes.

I have to go back and look at the intention and intent of this bill, the 17th review in 21 years. The reality is that this needs another review, because just shortly after this review was done by the Minister of Internal Affairs, he came out with his fist-pumping pleasured look on his face saying “What a great bill this is. It is going to be so good to see these reforms coming through into this area.”, yet 2 weeks after that announcement, he talked about how civil defence emergency management maybe could have—should have, might have—been enrolled in part of this Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, which has been put before us. This says one thing, and one thing loudly and clearly—that this Minister has got this bill completely wrong. It clearly needs another review. They need to extend this out at least for another 12 months so that the new Government can actually get in here and sort this problem out.

The first thing we need to consider is that amalgamation is designed to make things smoother, to make things more affordable, and it is about creating efficiencies. Well, this bill has actually done the opposite. By the admission of the Minister of Internal Affairs, in looking through the numbers there is going to be a 40 percent increase in revenue collected and needed—$80 million extra that we are going to be putting on to those people who insure their properties and are going to be charged those levies. If we are talking about efficiencies, why is an extra $80 million required for this organisation? It asks further questions: why, from an organisation that in 1993 did for a short period of time implement the levy system, has it now continued on with this levy scheme on steroids?

Now it is going to be brought in looking after and being levied on car registrations, on contents insurance, on travel insurance, and on commercial and residential insurance. There are a number of people who do not tie up for this emergency service provision and pay their revenues, and pay their fees to support what the Fire Service actually is designed to do. So, many, many people will be getting a service for free, and the other people who decide to insure their property, to insure themselves when they travel overseas, and to insure their commercial properties will be picking up the tab. That may have an adverse effect—and I am sure it will have an adverse effect—because those charges will be passed on to consumers, they will be passed on to everyday New Zealand citizens who will, ultimately, be paying for this service not once, not twice, but three times.

This levy system that they have built here without any caps on the commercial sector is going to be the undoing of this new amalgamation proposal. That is without even going into some of the other aspects that have created some concerns. When we look at international reports—the Ferguson report from Western Australia, the Malone report from Queensland, who have all come out and said that when you amalgamate rural and urban fire services together, there are consequences, and those consequences are quite dire—you find the rural-provincial parts of their country and of this country will be marginalised by this new amalgamated service called Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

I think the consideration from New Zealand First to delay the timing of the implementation of this bill to 29 February 2018 is a very good idea. We hope that the Minister sees the sense in this to move forward, and that will certainly give the next Government an opportunity to give real reforms to an organisation that does desperately require it. There has been so much missed out by Labour, there has been so much missed out by National and so much missed out by the Greens, it just seems to be that the only party that has done its homework on this subject is New Zealand First, and that is why it is common sense. You are going to see a great result come 23 September because people around this country have worked it out themselves. Thank you.

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s common sense.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: It is common sense.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members, the question being that clauses 1 and 2 stand part, first we turn our mind to Adrian Rurawhe’s amendment to clause 1. Inserting “Services” in the title was out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Clause 1 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 clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Adrian Rurawhe’s amendment to clause 2, changing “FENZ” to “FESNZ”, is out of order as being contingent on an amendment already negatived.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Otirā, ngā members o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. It is indeed a privilege to make a contribution to the debate on the Māori Purposes Bill in this, the Committee stage. Can I just reorientate us as to the purpose of this particular bill that we are debating. The Māori Purposes Bill serves to improve the governance arrangements for the Wī Pere Trust, enable the trust to acquire and hold land for investment purposes, and clarify the relationships between the Māori Purposes Act and Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.

Why is this an important piece of legislation? Wī Pere was an important figure for Māori, and for all New Zealanders, in our early parliamentary history, and his legacy deserves to be protected. In fact, I am a linear descendant of Wī Pere’s father, so Wī Pere himself was my great-great-grand-uncle, with the dad having had several wives. Wī Pere himself came off the fourth wife, and my lineage to his father comes off the fifth marriage. So I would like to acknowledge that—

Hon Simon Bridges: Busy boy.

MEKA WHAITIRI: He was very busy—Thomas Halbert, who was Wī Pere’s dad. But, look, Wī Pere should be a leader celebrated for what he did, particularly for the descendants who now enjoy a very successful land trust that operates in the Gisborne area.

So I just wanted to remind us of that as we are debating this bill. It is clear that Labour is supporting it, and I want to talk just briefly on the purposes of the bill. There are about seven parts that this bill is trying to address, which we all support. It is looking at replacing trustees with an incorporated trust board, with body corporate status and limited liability. Its purpose is to allow the trust board to adopt rules relating to internal management and governance, and to set out the new trust board’s initial constitution. It also attempts to remove certain ministerial involvements in the governance of the trust. It also removes the provision deeming all land held by the trust to be Māori freehold land. It enables the trust to acquire and hold general land for investment purposes. It allows the trust to maintain its own register of beneficial interests. It clarifies the interface between the principal Act and the 1993 Act and the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court.

Can I just turn your attention to Part 1 of the bill, because I really want to speak to my particular Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and give the Committee a reason, I guess, for the SOP. But before I get there, there was a question—because Minister Te Ururoa Flavell is sitting in the chair—and that is in relation to Part 1, new section 3, “Interpretation”, in clause 8, particularly where we talk about “ ‘beneficial interest’ has the meaning given to it in section 17”. Then, when we turn to new section 17 in clause 9 of the bill, we have a definition there that says: “In this Act, ‘beneficial interest’ means, in relation to trust property, the undivided beneficial interest of a beneficiary in the Māori freehold land vested in the board for the purpose of the trust, and includes that beneficiary’s corresponding undivided interest in all other trust property comprised in the trust.” I guess the question that I had for the Minister—and he may be able to shed some light on it—is whether this beneficial interest extends to general land, because it does not say that in either the interpretation or this particular part.

So just some clarity, if the Minister would, just to make it really clear—we understand that we have the freehold Māori land in Wī Pere Trust. It has acquired general land. The issue is: who actually owns the general land?

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: What’s the clause? What’s the reference again?

MEKA WHAITIRI: So it is new section 17, Minister, and the question was, yes, whether it extends to general land. So that is just one point of clarification. But just in terms of my SOP, SOP No.—

Hon Ruth Dyson: 205.

MEKA WHAITIRI: —205. There you go—SOP 205. The SOP that I have put forward, to see whether we can get support across the Committee for it, is in relation to clause 9. Again, for the submitters who came in front of the Māori Affairs Committee, there were concerns about the desire of the trust to put the running or the administration of the trust under the jurisdiction of the High Court. Reasons were given at the select committee not only about the cost to file if there were concerns about the running of the trust but also about making it accessible to the beneficial owners to have any concerns that they may raise with the way that the trust is running—their ability to go to the Māori Land Court, as it currently is now.

Can I just say that I have spoken to the current chair of the trust, because I did not want Mr Hāronga to be blindsided by this SOP. His response to me was that the commercial expertise, I guess, would lie best with the High Court, which is why the trust is asking that the administration of the trust goes under the High Court. My response was that the expertise in terms of tikanga actually sits with the Māori Land Court, but I just wanted to give the Committee some assurances that this was put up for the sole reason of ensuring that Wī Pere’s descendants and the whole set-up of the Wī Pere Trust—it does not get too far removed from those beneficial owners.

So I just wanted, by way of explanation, to say both the motivation behind the SOP but also to give you some assurances that I have had this discussion with the chairman of the trust. He was neither here nor there, but that is OK—it is entirely up to the Committee. But I just wanted to put that on the floor to let people know. Kia ora.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Peeni—

Peeni Henare: Henare.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ka pai. Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. I daresay there will be a few tongue-twisters this evening with the contents of the two bills in front of us.

First of all, I stand in support of my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205. She started to talk about the role of the Māori Land Court and the role of the High Court, and I would like to support her particular SOP out of concern about when jurisdiction such as this is changed.

I just briefly want to look at Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. In the principles in clause 3(4) of that bill, it talks about “(a) Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa: (b) tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land: (c) Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land:”, and so on. There are several others there, but you get the general gist of what I am saying there.

I support the SOP from my colleague because of the concerns with regard to the ability for the High Court to understand the types of matters such as whakapapa and to understand the types of matters such as tikanga. I do so not to say that the High Court is not of high quality, but to say that it is all about the precedents, and it is about the involvement that the Māori Land Court has had with Māori land.

In dealing with matters pertaining to Māori land, whether it is trusts or organisations the size of the Wī Pere Trust, or whether it is trusts or organisations of a much smaller nature—of which a lot of the Māori land blocks are across Aotearoa—they are not all under big control. But I think too—and we will no doubt cover this throughout the length of this evening—that this also signals to a lot of Māori land owners across Aotearoa, who will be asking: “Well, is this where things are heading in relation to Māori land jurisdiction and Māori land ownership?”. I have got some serious concerns about that, which is why I stand in support of Meka Whaitiri and her Supplementary Order Paper 205.

We have had some feedback over the past number of months since this bill was taken off the Order Paper—and we find it back now—from Māori land owners across Aotearoa who do not see this as simply a trivial matter of taking it out of one jurisdiction and putting it into another. There is a far more serious impact that could befall many of the Māori land blocks across Aotearoa.

Now I want to turn to Supplementary Order Paper 231, in the name of Minister Te Ururoa Flavell, with regard to the form of money that was allocated to Te Pūtahi Pāoho and that will now, because of the result of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori of April last year—and I understand that these are some technical matters that just need to be cleaned up. We support that, like we do for Te Reo Māori. We want to see that money be used for the purposes of Te Reo Māori.

I just have a question for the Minister, and I guess it is directly, or indirectly—I will leave that to your discretion, sir—about when that money is appropriated for Te Mātāwai and its exact purpose. Given that Te Mātāwai has been operating for a year now, I have got some questions around the administration. Like I said, sir, I will leave that to your discretion. But we do support that particular SOP, so that the functions of Te Mātāwai can get on with it. I am curious to hear a little bit more about those. So, just to wind up my short call, I support Meka Whaitiri’s SOP 205 and, of course, SOP 231.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. You learn something new every day. I was quite interested to hear that Wī Pere’s father, Thomas Halbert, actually had six wives. I did not realise that. If you can just bear with me for a second, it reminds me of my grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary in 1979. My grandmother had not seen her younger sister for a couple of decades, I believe. My Great Auntie Eunice turned up—she had had a number of husbands—and my grandmother said: “Oh, what husband are you on to now?”, and she said: “I’m on to my fourth.” My grandmother said: “Ha! Look at me. I have been married to the same guy for 50 years.”, and Auntie Eunice said: “Well, that’s your fault!”.

I would just like to speak as well to my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper 205. It is really good to hear that she has spoken to Alan Hāronga, the chair of the Wī Pere Trust, about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). We thought it may have a few concerns about the SOP—in other words, the SOP says that people should be able to go to the Māori Land Court rather than the High Court. There are a number of reasons why we believe that, and the first and the most obvious reason is that the cost of going to the High Court is quite prohibitive to your everyday whānau who want to challenge something, whereas, in terms of the cost of going to the Māori Land Court, I believe that filing an application there comes to something like $50 plus GST. So it is quite within the reach of everyday whānau to be able to file an application in the Māori Land Court, the difference being that in the High Court you get a speedier decision, and, as Meka has said, Alan Hāronga told her that the High Court is the appropriate court for commercial expertise.

So the balance is between getting a speedy judgment in the High Court but at a higher cost that may put the cost of going to court out of the reach of people, or having a slower process in the Māori Land Court but whānau being actually able to afford to do it. So that is the argument that is in discussion here, and, obviously, we on this side of the Chamber prefer that all whānau actually have access to the court. Hence we believe that the Māori Land Court is the most appropriate court to be in the bill. Hence Meka Whaitiri has suggested that the Māori Land Court is the most appropriate court, rather than the High Court.

Second, I would like to speak to Minister Flavell’s SOP 234, which is an amendment to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015. We support this SOP. It is a very minor amendment to the original Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act of 2015. It was just something that was overlooked, and the explanatory note in the SOP actually explains things really well. Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd is able to recognise an iwi organisation for the purposes of receiving fisheries assets as the mandated iwi organisation. Unfortunately, when the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act was passed, or before it was passed, the mandated iwi organisation for Te Rarawa was a charitable trust named Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. It was the intention of Te Rarawa iwi for the mandated iwi organisation status of the charitable trust to be transferred to its post-settlement governance entity.

But that did not actually happen in the Act, so this SOP is setting out to resolve that issue for Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. So it is actually recognising Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa as the mandated iwi organisation for Te Rarawa iwi, and this SOP applies that retrospectively to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act. So those of us on this side support that minor adjustment to that previous Act.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I just want to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Māori Purposes Bill and recognise that the Minister, in introducing it, was, I guess, trying to support the aspirations of the Wī Pere Trust, to ensure that in moving from a trust to a board structure with body corporate status and limited liability, it was actually taking away the accountability to the Minister and introducing more accountability to shareholders. So that is the first thing.

Part 1 makes a provision to reduce the number of board members from seven to five. In the Māori Affairs Committee we discussed, quite strongly, these transitional aspects of confirming board members, which we accepted. However, when the bill was introduced it proposed that the quorum to consider matters needed to be only two members, and we had a concern about that. We thought that the threshold of two was too low, and that, for the sake of assurance, if we had the transition from seven to five board members to take the Wī Pere Trust through in this manner, it would be better to lift the quorum to three instead of two. That was accepted across the select committee.

We think it is an improvement. There was a high level of scepticism in any whānau trust or trust of that nature to leave such big decisions to a potential quorum of two people. In reality that may not have occurred, but we needed to be sure, within the context of the bill, that we were addressing this issue in a way that listened to some of the concerns of those who presented at the select committee.

I wanted to ask the Minister, in terms of the matters that were raised by Meka Whaitiri and her proposed amendment to clause 9 in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205, should the next bill proceed to Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, whether the context of the SOP still remains valid. It is an important question to ask, because when the Wī Pere bill was introduced at the select committee we were all of the understanding that it was preceding Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill and had some of the amendments that we might expect in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

In the event that issues of linear descent are considered—and, again, my colleague Meka Whaitiri has put the argument to the House that the best court, with jurisdiction and knowledge and experience, to consider those matters is the Māori Land Court—what happens if we accept that these types of issues can go to the High Court? The things that were, I guess, raised as a matter of course around taking issues to the High Court was cost in itself and the prohibitive nature of that. We believed that that court had limited knowledge and experience to consider these issues of whakapapa, and the Māori Land Court was more qualified to do this and had the opportunity, I think, to show some understanding around these provisions within the broader context of linear whakapapa descent as it relates to Māori land interests.

The only other thing that I would add at this stage is that the separation of corpus lands and other lands was a very important separation. During the submission process a lot of people who had connections to the Wī Pere Trust were concerned that there was a prospect that the trust might sell papakāinga land. Again, it was not until we went through the select committee process, when it was made very clear and provided for in the schedules, that the corpus lands, which are these lands that many shareholders had the most concern about, were being separated out and could not be, I guess, impacted on in the same way as other lands that had been accumulated by the trust.

With that understanding in mind, I think it was helpful to go right through the select committee process to ensure that we were applying some rigour to the concerns of beneficiaries or descendants in this area and to give this process an assurance that we were trying to address the valid concerns that were raised.

One other thing—and it would be helpful for the Minister if he could take a call—is to ask just what steps he went through to assure himself that the transitional tax provisions were robust enough to ensure that what was asked for by the Wī Pere Trust could be delivered on. I note that this is a whole new area and we received a bit of advice from officials, but it would be good to get clarity from the Minister on that.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Māori Purposes Bill to be debated as one question.

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

Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Ka nui te mihi ki a tātau e hoa mā kua tae mai i tēnei pō ki te wānanga i tēnei kaupapa, kua roa e noho tārewa ana ēngari, kai te pai! He pai tonu i whakaara ake ngā āwangawanga, ngā anipā i tērā wā nō reira, anei tātau i tēnei pō e ruku nei ki te hōhonutanga o tēnei o ngā kaupapa i tēnei pō, ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o wā tātau kōrero. E kore au e hoki ki ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia ēngari, ka ngana nei ki te whaiwhai haere i ētahi kōrero kua puta ake i tēnei pō.

[Fellow colleagues, your arrival here this evening is greatly appreciated to deliberate this matter that has been unresolved for a long time, but that is fine. It is quite good, really, in that concerns and uneasiness were raised during that period, and here we are delving into the depth of the matters, and I commend the tenor of our contributions. I will not be going back to sentiments expressed but will attempt to follow up on some statements that came up tonight.]

I just want to address a couple of the matters that are pretty important in the context of this bill to the member Meka Whaitiri, firstly, around her concern on clause 7. The advice I have is that beneficial interest in Māori freehold land includes corresponding interest in all other trust property, and this includes general land. That is the advice I have.

With regard to the bigger issues that have been raised by Mr Henare and, not as much, by Mr Davis, I want to take it through carefully, because this is at the nub of the issue in respect of the High Court and the Māori Land Court. My advice is this: the Wī Pere Trust is currently subject to both the High Court and Māori Land Court jurisdictions, although the jurisdiction of each court is not necessarily really clear. New sections 5(2) and 5(3), inserted by clause 9, clarify the jurisdiction of the High Court to settle disputes relating to the administration and governance of the trust, and explicitly exclude the Māori Land Court from having that jurisdiction.

The proposed change in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205, in the name of Meka Whaitiri, removes reference to the High Court having the jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to the administration and governance the Wī Pere Trust. It does not explicitly seek this jurisdiction for the Māori Land Court. This is potentially problematic for the beneficiaries, in creating that element of ambiguity again. The trust was not created under Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act 1993. It is not subject to all of the Act’s provisions or to the full jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court as provided by this Act. The special expertise and knowledge of the Māori Land Court in areas relating to history, tikanga, whakapapa, etc. associated with Māori freehold land is absolutely, I think, acknowledged in the bill, as we all know, with the Māori Land Court being given jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to lineal descent, which is noted in new section 26, inserted by clause 9.

The Māori Land Court continues to hold the jurisdiction for matters concerning all Māori freehold land owned by the trust. Beneficiaries will still have affordable access to the Māori Land Court in important matters related to their land and in matters relating to commerce, administration, and governance. The High Court has the appropriate expertise given that the trust’s assets are not limited to Māori freehold land. The Māori Land Court does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to trust property that is general land. The Wī Pere Trust is aware of the cost differences between the High Court and the Māori Land Court, and only very serious matters that are unable to be resolved through the disputes process would proceed to the High Court.

Schedule 1, “Initial constitution of trust board”, outlines the disputes resolution process, involving discussion and negotiation that is used to resolve issues that may arise between trust board members or beneficiaries. The intention, of course, is to avoid any unnecessary court or arbitration proceedings. The trustees, in their submission to the Māori Affairs Committee, I believe, acknowledged that the Māori Land Court has special expertise and knowledge in areas related to those issues of tikanga, history, and whakapapa associated with Māori freehold land. They noted that the bill continues to provide for the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court in respect of all Māori freehold land owned by the trust. Their view was that this ensures beneficiaries will still have cost-effective access to the Māori Land Court on important matters relating to their land.

What we have generally picked up is we have heard their submissions, dealt with the submissions, and, pretty much across the board, we are here on the basis of what the Wī Pere Trust wants and has agreed to. So that is where it sort of lands, and in that regard I just need to signal to the member from Ikaroa-Rāwhiti that we will not be supporting her SOP, because we believe that it is pretty much covered off. I thought I would just stand to offer up that rebuttal to—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Stand up to your officials.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ha, ha! OK, I will stand up straighter now. We will not be following on from the desire of the member, but we understand her motivation in putting the submission up. We will leave it on the Table at this point in time. Kia ora tātou.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members, just to restate, in light of the point of order taken earlier and the leave granted, the question is that Parts 1 and 2, the schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part, and that the amendments inserting new Parts 1A and 1B, new Part 3, and new schedule 2 be agreed to. I call Pita Paraone.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. In terms of widening the debate to include all parts, does that include the number of calls that members can have?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): There is one member, Meka Whaitiri, who has used four calls on the previous clauses. She can seek leave to be given another call if she wishes and nobody objects. Apart from that, members have still got their allocation of calls. I understand the member currently with the call has not had any so far. He has got four to come.

Jami-Lee Ross: It is quite normal for members to restart their calls when we take it as one debate, so I will seek leave for Meka Whaitiri to have her number reset, for want of a better term.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Congratulations.

PITA PARAONE: First of all, I want to thank the Minister in the chair, Minister Flavell, for his explanation, particularly his justification for not supporting Ms Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205. I just want to raise a point in terms of the use of the High Court, particularly in dispute situations. It would seem to me that where such a situation arises, the trustees will use trust resources to defend their position, whereas those, particularly beneficiaries, who have an opposing view have to use their own resources, with the possibility of being awarded costs at the end of the process. For that reason, again, New Zealand First would support the SOP from the member, and would ask the Minister whether he has considered that position, because invariably that is what will happen. While we have a disputes process outlined, in terms of where it can go, at the end of the day the objections have been around the costs that would be involved. That is No. 1.

No. 2 is the question of the ability of the Māori Land Court. Reference was made by an earlier speaker that the use of the High Court equalled a speedier decision. Reference has been made to the next bill that the House will be discussing in Committee, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. The issue here is whether or not the Māori Land Court has the capacity, and I would have thought that consideration would be given to strengthening the Māori Land Court in order that we can get speedier decisions, rather than, as is proposed in the next bill, establishing what we call the Māori Land Service. However, that is a debate that we will certainly have when the time comes. I just wanted to make that point.

The other point is the reference made by the member for Te Tai Tokerau in regard to Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, its mandated iwi authority, and its issues regarding the Fisheries Act. I actually spoke with the chairman of te rūnanga, Haami Piripi, and he is a supporter of the proposal, because it actually clarifies their position and the position of Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa and the responsibility that it will have for managing those fisheries assets.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou. Where are we going? The Greens, of course, will be supporting the Māori Purposes Bill. The bill appears to be consistent with the Green Party principle of giving Māori organisations greater autonomy over their own affairs, particularly from the Crown. It appears to remove the ministerial involvement in the governance of the Wī Pere Trust. For those and other reasons upholding the Green Party’s commitment to Te Tiriti, we will be supporting this bill. I want to take a short call. I just have a couple of main questions concerning the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs).

Minister Flavell, I listened to your response regarding my colleague Meka Whaitiri and her SOP 205, which wants to retain the status quo with the Māori Land Court. Forgive me, I am trying to make sure that I have caught up, but it appears that a lot of the concerns about retaining the cultural knowledge and the institutional knowledge of whenua Māori are why the Green Party will be supporting Meka Whaitiri’s SOP. You have, it seems, explained that actually the concerns have been taken care of in the amendments, but then I note—and I am happy for the Minister to correct me—that even though the Māori Land Court will retain jurisdiction over issues relating to Māori freehold land interest, the High Court still retains the jurisdiction to determine the lineal descent, the whakapapa, succession purposes, and discussions. So we would still actually support Meka Whaitiri’s SOP, even though all Māori land is being held under the authority of the Māori Land Court. We would still argue and debate that Māori issues are also better held by the Māori Land Court, because of the issue of tikanga relating to whenua. We would feel comfortable with the Māori Land Court retaining its jurisdiction, because of issues relating to whakapapa. I am just making sure I have caught up on where the Minister has replied on that. So that quick clarity on the Minister’s response to Meka Whaitiri’s SOP would be appreciated.

I did want to put on the record, being from Te Rarawa, that we, of course, will be supporting the catch-up SOP, I guess, SOP 234, the Minister’s SOP, which just wants to rectify that when the Te Rarawa settlements were put in place, they had to make sure that they had their mandated iwi organisation for each iwi. Of course we want to support that, and I want to put that on record. Now—yes, I have 2 minutes—I could continue this, but the Green Party did have a specific question. This is to do with land status. The bill, I think, removes the provision in the current Act deeming all land held by the trust to be Māori freehold land. This means, I think, that the trust may, after this bill is passed, own general land that would not be protected. I am just asking about that. General land that would not be protected as freehold land would be under compulsory acquisition from the Public Works Act.

I am wondering, then, whether, for example, the public works amendment legislation should—sorry, I will go back. I am wondering whether we need to consult with the Wī Pere Trust over whether it would prefer that general land held by the trust should also be protected from Public Works Act compulsory acquisition. Those were the main sorts of points at this stage that I would like to put to the Minister for clarity. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am very pleased to take a call in this Committee stage. At the outset, I do want to acknowledge the Wī Pere Trust for its patience in ushering through this bill, because it has been a while. I understand it has been close to a decade since it has been talking with officials and working out ways as to how it can update its trust deed or its method of operation, its structure. So I do acknowledge it. It is one of those unsung giants of the Māori economy that are under the radar, so to speak. Not too many people would have heard of it, but it is a very impressive agribusiness up there in the Gisborne-Tūranga area. So I am pleased that we are able to do what we can in the House to update and modernise its structure.

In updating the structure, I just want to pick up on a couple of things. When we talk about the Wī Pere Trust and having to use Parliament to pass a law to update or modernise its structure, one would ask the question: why would it want to have a private statutory trust? It would be much more convenient in this modern day and age to have a conventional business structure—a company, limited partnerships, or the like—rather than having to wait 25 years to come to Parliament and spend 10 years with officials to work on a piece of legislation to finally modernise its structure, the way that it is set up, and its governance.

But then one has to look at the name of the trust, the history of the trust, and the whakapapa. Wīremu Pere, a renowned member of this House, served for many years—28 years, I believe—in the Eastern Māori seat, and he also served in the Upper House. We are talking about a rangatira, their tupuna, who left this legacy for his descendants. So it is in that light that I can understand how the whānau, or the descendants, wish to preserve that whakapapa within the statute but, also, to modernise it so they can go about their business without being unduly stymied by some archaic provisions.

I just want to raise a point. By going back to the Maōri Purposes Act of 1991, which was the last piece of legislation for the trust, it is actually based on a trust deed that I think goes back to 1899. Wī Pere settled this trust back in 1899. It was a trust deed, and over successive years, I believe, there must have been changes in the trust. It is all set out in section 2 of that Act, which we are updating through this bill. But there is one part in the section—and I assume it has been covered, but it has been taken out. I know the language is quite dated, it is quite legal, but it talks about: “And whereas it is expedient, having regard to the intentions express or implied and contained in the trust deed, that new trusts should be declared …”. What it is saying there is that there has been recognition that the actions that are being taken take into account all the way back to the trust deed—the intentions, express or implied, that were established right back in 1899.

So my question is: has the Minister gone back to that deed and made sure that what is occurring through this bill actually aligns and accords with the intentions of that original trust deed? That is all I am saying. I am sure that is the case, but maybe back in those days it was only contemplated that natural people would be the trustees. Corporate trustees could be expressly precluded under the trust deed. I know it is a moot point, in a way, but I think, given the importance of the whakapapa of this piece of legislation, that it goes all the way back to the trust deed, I would just like to seek an assurance from the Minister that what is being proposed through modernising the structure now has regard to what was laid out all those years ago in the original trust deed, and that it aligns with what was laid out in that original trust deed, because those specific words are being taken out of section 2 in the bill as proposed.

While I have got another call, then, I would like to move on to the Supplementary Order Paper that deals with Te Rarawa. I would like to acknowledge Te Rarawa as well. It is one of those instances whereby an iwi creates an entity—it is a mandated iwi organisation; it is called Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa—and then, I think through the passage of their Treaty settlement, they dissolved that entity and set up another entity and called it Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa; exactly the same. We have got two Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawas, and they just want to make sure that the right Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa is actually covered by the legislation. When I think of Te Rarawa, though, I think of the huge contribution that all the five iwi of the Muriwhenua made to our fisheries settlements that we have today. Were it not for Matiu Rata going to the Waitangi Tribunal for that Muriwhenua report, followed by the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report, those ground-breaking reports, taken by those groups to the Waitangi Tribunal, opened the door for us to have the Māori fisheries settlements that we have today.

So here we are, over 30 years now—30 years on from those pioneering moves, from those rangatira from the Muriwhenua, directly to Te Rarawa. So I think it is right that we correct things in a legal sense and make sure that the right entities are actually covered. But what I would seek from the Minister is just some advice that Te Ohu Kaimoana have, I guess, approved, or they have given their support to this piece of legislation, because what we are doing in this legislation is we are, basically, directing, through an Act of Parliament, that Te Ohu Kaimoana has to put this new Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa into its register and that it has ticked all the boxes under the Maōri Fisheries Act, and that it complies with the Maōri Fisheries Act.

That may not be the case—I am sure it is—but what I would like from the Minister is to know that there is indeed endorsement from Te Ohu Kaimoana that, indeed, this new Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa is a mandated iwi organisation in accordance with the Maōri Fisheries Act. Although we are directing them to fill out the register and tick all the boxes, it would be nice to know that Te Ohu Kaimoana actually supports this move and we are not just bullying it to write in a new iwi. Technically, that iwi may not be in compliance with the Act, but one would think that Te Ohu Kaimoana—it would be good to have its endorsement of what we are doing here.

While we are on this point, of the other 57-odd iwi that are mandated iwi organisations under the Māori fisheries settlement, are there any others that have switched hats, kept the same name, and created new entities to hold their fisheries settlement assets? So what I am asking the Minister is: are there any other mandated iwi organisations that are in a similar position to Te Rarawa? If that is the case, rather than coming back to Parliament and passing many of these types of legislation, it might be good to do all in one hit. Thank you very much.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Heamana, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chairman, and my acknowledgments to you all throughout this Chamber.]

I just want to acknowledge the fact that this bill has taken a long time, as the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, has just reflected. With what he is talking about, it could possibly take a bit longer. What I want to do is to say that the Government supports the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to amend the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015, Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act 1993, and the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003.

I really want, first of all, to acknowledge Meka Whaitiri, because I know that when we were in Gisborne hearing submissions, and when the Māori Affairs Committee has done the work on this bill, Meka Whaitiri has always been very passionate about the different parts of the bill, which is particularly reflected in her SOP. But I think the important thing here—unfortunately we are not going to support the SOP. One of the reasons is that when we looked at the bill originally, it was actually about bringing this legislation into, sort of, the 21st century, in some ways, and also to provide more clarity around different procedures. This is the one here, because what Meka Whaitiri’s SOP 205 does is it addresses the primary purpose of the bill. Meka Whaitiri’s SOP proposes to remove the part of the bill that clarifies the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Māori Land Court over the Wī Pere Trust, and returns it, pretty much, to the status quo. Currently the High Court and the Māori Land Court hold jurisdiction, but there is actually no clear demarcation. There is no clear demarcation of what the jurisdiction is that they actually hold.

When we looked at this—this bill as drafted clarifies that the High Court has jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to the administration and the governance of the trust, and excludes the Māori Land Court from having that jurisdiction. Yes, we know that. We looked at that. But the argument that Meka Whaitiri has put forward in favour of her amendment is that the Māori Land Court has the appropriate expertise to deal with these matters. In some ways, she is right. The Māori Land Court has expertise in matters related to Māori freehold land, and that is why this bill still gives it jurisdiction over matters related to Māori freehold land itself.

However, there are other matters here, related to commerce, administration, and governance, where the High Court has the appropriate expertise. One other thing, particularly, is that the trust assets are not just limited to Māori freehold land. I think this is the real essence of this one. When we look at that, there are other things that this trust is involved with. This really does bring it into, you know, more of a modern time and more into the 21st century. There is this argument around the commercial cost to go to the High Court. But when looking at it, it is only on these really serious matters, but there is also that disputes resolution process that they could go to.

So I do think that this bill, as it has been drafted, does not need this SOP, because it actually creates that, sort of, clarity and demarcation as to what the two courts actually do. The fact is that freehold land is not the only thing that this trust actually deals with. Kia ora.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I thought I had better get ahead of the game and try to keep up with the comments that are coming through. I will start with Pita Paraone and say that I hear what he is saying about costs, but if you go to any court it is going to cost somebody—not to say that that is a good response to your kōrero, but I hear what you say. Ultimately, in this whole bill, what has happened is that the trust itself has basically shaped up this bill. Therefore, it has set the rules, it has set the terms, it understands what it is getting into, and it has made it very clear. Because of the long period of time—it is not as if this thing started just yesterday; it has been a long period of time—it has come to the conclusions that it has. But I do understand the point that the member made.

In terms of the member Marama Davidson, just for her clarity, I think I did mention—I am not too sure whether she was here—that the Māori Land Court does retain jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to lineal descent, so kua ea tērā [that has been achieved]. Around the issue about general land not being available for public works, unfortunately—and I made the statement that the trust went into it with eyes open—when the land is converted over to general title, then it does line up to everyone else’s, having the same regime of being available for that. On the good side of the coin, I suppose, it is my understanding—and it will be discussed a little bit later—that the number of times that the Public Works Act has been used on Māori land in the last 7 or 8 years has been once. That is not to say it will not happen again, and we sort of cover that off in the bill, but at least that clarifies, I think, what the member was talking about.

In terms of the tax regime—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised this, asking what steps I took to address the issue of transitional tax. My advice was that this was carefully considered through with officials, including the IRA—IRD, ha, ha!

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Same—same thing.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: E rua, e rua. [Two, two.] Oh! So the IRD officials were a part of it, to ensure that the transitional tax clause works as it was intended, so I think we have sort of covered off that one. In terms of the member Rino Tirikatene, I think that the issue that he raised was around the trustee. Again, I say that the trust itself put this kaupapa on the table in front of me, as Minister for Māori Development, and I am pretty sure that they were very clear that the original intent of the trustee must be retained, or else we would not be here. So I think that has sort of dealt with that.

Te Rarawa—I am fairly confident that Te Ohu Kaimoana has signed off on that one, or else we would not be here, so I will leave that to sit there. I will not talk about any other iwi, because all I am focused on is getting this one through. I think that pretty much covers the issues that have been raised already, so kia ora tātou.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Actually, having heard the explanation from our colleague and chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, around the High Court jurisdiction—I understand that.

I have got a question that needs clarification, because if we look at new schedule 1, the initial constitution of the board, in the voting provision area—is it appendix 1? Sorry, it is appendix 3 in new schedule 1—where the provision is made for voting, ballots can be destroyed after 3 months. However, that implies that there is a 3-month opportunity to challenge the outcome of a voting situation. In that instance, if—I am sorry, I cannot find it now that I am looking at it.

While I am talking, anyway, I had observed that—oh, here it is. Clause 12 of appendix 2 in new schedule 1, “Retention of election records”, states: “The board must keep all documentation … for a period of 3 months after the election …”. However, there is no provision within the appendix to state that if there were a challenge it has to be done within the 3-month period, because, you know, you would need the records to be able to mount a challenge with some evidence as to why that could be put to the courts. So I am just thinking, as I read that, that that is an issue of governance, at the heart of it. If it was a genuine opportunity, I guess, to ensure the robust nature of the election of trustees, and there was the potential for challenge, there is no way to link that period of time, which is 3 months, to the potential of a challenge being mounted. So I just raise that, because as you were making some very good points, it occurred to me that we had not asked those questions at select committee.

Can I go back to new schedule 1 and say that some of the high threshold obligations that we were concerned with, to support the submissions before the select committee, were around things like the decision-making process. So when we were looking to the issue of significant or major transactions, the threshold of major transactions is set out in the initial constitution, and I think that is a helpful thing in the initial constitution. I regret that I may have been a little bit unclear when I talked to the quorum issue. What I was referring to is when the bill was initially introduced, in the constitution it made the provision of a transitional board comprising either three or seven members, and we had recommended that that should be five or seven members so that the quorum would move up from two to three. So I just wanted to clarify that for my own benefit.

The other thing that I wanted to ask a question and seek some clarification on was around the issue of disposal of a beneficial interest. The bill indicates that that would expire on things like when a civil union took place. However, it is not clear what the threshold test of that is, and if we are wanting people to self-proclaim “Oh, I’m in a civil union and therefore my beneficial interests may cease.”, I think we might be dreaming. As I am thinking through some of the practical aspects of situations and whether it was intended that there be a self-reporting of a civil union and therefore beneficial interests would cease—if we could have clarification on those.

The other aspect of the initial constitution, which I absolutely support—and I think people making submissions to the committee would be pleased about—is that we have put in a reviewable period of the constitution, and also ensured that there is an opportunity to vary the constitution by resolution. That, in my mind, at least provided an opportunity for legitimate concerns around the way in which the trust could be improved, and that shareholders contribute to the way in which the constitution operates—that there is a mechanism there, but it is not so low to allow scurrilous, let us say, opportunists to change the constitution. Again, we discussed this at length. We felt that there needed to be some kind of threshold and an opportunity, and this would be a positive innovation to the way in which the constitution was working. But everything, in terms of supporting the trust going forward and modernising, I absolutely support.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te W’are, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the select committee members. I had the honour of sitting for one day, hearing evidence on this bill in Gisborne, and I just want to briefly address some of the issues of the submitters. One in particular that really struck me as being quite important to the beneficiaries was around the papakāinga land and what they saw as potential for papakāinga lands to be sold. Just as a very quick message out to the people listening, that issue was heard by the committee and it has been addressed in here.

I do want to now turn to Supplementary Order Paper 234 on the issue of retrospectively allowing Te Rūnanga o Te Arawa to become a mandated iwi organisation, which is not the first time this has actually happened, to answer my colleague’s question. I know this because I was the chair of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa and it happened to us. I think it does actually highlight that there are two separate processes going on here, between the Treaty settlement process and the Te Ohu Kaimoana process for mandated iwi organisations. Of course, you can have only one mandated iwi organisation for the purpose of the fisheries settlement, so ensuring that there is ease of transferral from existing entities into post-settlement governance entities is really important. The interesting thing, I think, about this particular case is that we are doing this by legislation, and I think others have not been able to do that or have not had the opportunity, perhaps because there was not a Māori Purposes Bill in the House at the time. I can fully understand why the Minister for Māori Development has created a Supplementary Order Paper under the Māori Purposes Bill for this express purpose, because the only way other than that is to have its own amendment legislation, which would take a lot longer. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for doing that. I can well understand the frustration that is probably happening with Te Rarawa in having their fisheries assets transferred to their post-settlement governance entity, so I acknowledge that.

I want to just briefly speak about the governance arrangements as well. I think, for the Wī Pere Trust—jumping back to this part of the bill—I just want to acknowledge the concerns of some of the submitters and the beneficiaries and, really, just put out a word of encouragement around making certain that these new provisions do not remove the ability for beneficiaries to participate in what is, essentially, their legacy. So, with those three points, nō reira, tēnā tātou.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe. Just a short call on this one, and I just want to thank the Minister and the chairman of the hard-working Māori Affairs Committee for explaining the reason you cannot support my Supplementary Order Paper. I too want to acknowledge the patience of the Wī Pere Trust, and the work of the chair, Alan Haronga, Kingi Smiler, and all the others back home running this. I do not want to delay it any further.

What I think is really important, though, is to make sure when we are passing this bill that we are up to play with what is happening, particularly in the Minister’s explanation of the jurisdiction and the difference between the Māori Land Court and the High Court. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation around the Māori Land Court—that linear descendants will still be there and corpus land will still be there—but what we have not addressed is that the Māori Land Court is actually under review. When we pass this bill I am just conscious that the entity we are giving jurisdiction to in relation to linear descendants and corpus land or Māori freehold land could potentially change.

For me, it is just because we are not at that point yet of debating the next bill, but it does raise a concern I have—that by saying, in terms of the jurisdiction for these particular parts for the beneficiaries of Wī Pere, that they have access through the Māori Land Court, but we actually cannot guarantee what that land court is going to look like, because it is currently under review, particularly around the threshold decision-making parts, the role of the chief executive, and the Māori Land Service. These new players are going to have impact on the Māori Land Court as we know it now, so I am just mindful—I do not know whether it is a question to the Minister, because it is a bit of crystal-ball-gazing. But I do believe it is an important point to re-emphasise—that in not supporting my Supplementary Order Paper and the feeling that we can cover off both the running of the trust at the High Court level and giving the corpus land and linear descendant decisions to the Māori Land Court, yet we actually do not know how that it is going to fall, given it is currently under review. I just wanted to make the point that it is important that we do emphasise that.

I also want to address the point that the Minister shared with us—and I do thank the Minister for saying that this bill was written by the Trust. It is exactly what the Trust wants, and I have heard this around the House, not just from the Minister but I have heard others say that this organisation has written this bill. We run the risk of setting people up, particularly the Wī Pere Trust, simply because from an operational and governance perspective they would absolutely have an interest, or more than an interest, in how they want their trust to be run going forward. But when it comes to legislation, I still believe that the best place to make that is actually in this House and through a select committee process.

It is just a creep that I am seeing—that just because an organisation has written it, therefore it is good and we should back it, when we have not done the proper scrutiny and received advice from the officials. Those are my contributions in response to the Minister. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I too want to thank the Minister for his previous responses. I want to pick up on the important point that the Minister made regarding him working very closely together with the Wī Pere Trust. For the Green Party, that is pinnacle to our support. This is a fantastic model in terms of a trust wanting to increase its autonomy and distance itself further from Crown engagement. That is backed up, for us, by the consultation that the trustees had with the beneficiaries, in both 2009 and 2013. We acknowledge that that is a good level of consultation. Something that is a reality and that always pains me, if I am being honest, is that 31 percent of all beneficiaries, who represented 57 percent of beneficial interests, voted and 91 percent of them supported the changes. On paper that is a good high mandate. In reality, what I am always going to be concerned about is that we are leaving some whānau behind, even if it is just in terms of engagement and information.

On that note I think I will go now to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 232, the Minister’s SOP. It is concerned particularly with amendments relating to financial reporting requirements. It seems, I guess, to group Māori corporations into two different groupings. There is a large Māori incorporation definition, which is an incorporation that has had more than $10 million of revenue in each of the two preceding financial years, and then there is the definition for all other Māori incorporations to simply prepare financial statements, rather than be required to give an audit. So just briefly summarising the difference between the reporting financial requirements, I agree with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta that this is useful and practical in not asking smaller Māori organisations to have too much of a burden.

What I thought might be useful in that SOP, however—other members have commented that this has been in the House, before us, for quite some time. I have tried to find anything in any of the committee reports and so forth, and I simply cannot remember. So it would be useful if the Minister could just briefly outline where that classification came from—whether it was driven from the trust or whether it is simply just a standard classification of the size of incorporations. We support this—we think it is useful—but we are just making sure of where our practices and classification are coming from, particularly because for me it goes back to wanting to make sure all the whānau are protected and making sure that we have got good, robust systems in place. That was my short query on the bill at this point. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I rise to take only a short call. I want to get back to the purposes of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 with regard to the amendment to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act. I know my colleagues across the Chamber have canvassed this pretty well, but I have always got a few questions when we look at retrospective changes. If we are going to go back and change it from Te Rūnanga to Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, as set out in the SOP, I wonder, when I think about—and this is in respect of the retrospective change, because of the implications it has for Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa.

What it means, in respect of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori, schedule 3—and I raise that because we know that the iwi schedule set out in schedule 3 is based primarily on the fisheries schedule of iwi. I raise that as a point because my colleagues and my whanaunga here will know that Ngāti Hine were left out of that, primarily because of the Fisheries Act. So if we are going to retrospectively change this in the Fisheries Act, I wonder what other implications this might have.

I ask that because I notice on the SOP that Te Puni Kōkiri considers that a departmental disclosure statement is not required to be prepared for the Supplementary Order Paper. I just wonder what other impacts there are with this kind of retrospective change, given that the Fisheries Act is used as such a foundation Act for so much more moving forward. One example of that is, of course, Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori. So I will put that question to the Minister and look forward to and hope for a response.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Look, I want to make some reference to the submission process and the concern that was expressed during that time. I raise it only because we have heard tonight just how closely the principals of the trust have worked with the Minister Te Ururoa Flavell, and the Minister has delivered exactly what those principals have asked. One of the concerns that a submitter made was the question of donations being made without the total support of the beneficiaries. People can take what they like out of this, but it seems to me that that submitter may have had some reason for concern.

I would say that what we are discussing tonight is actually a blueprint for the next bill that this House will be discussing. I raise that point only because of the comment made about how closely the principals have worked with the Minister, and what we see in this bill at this time is what those principals have actually requested. I suppose my concern is really for the small beneficiary holders—those who have small interests, and yet are beneficiaries—and this bill, it would seem to me, could alienate those small-interest holders. Irrespective of the size of their shareholding, at the end of the day, when we have a corporate approach to dealing with Māori interests, invariably the minor shareholders lose out. Hence my earlier reference to the dispute process—that if it is not resolved in the Māori Land Court, then it gets referred to the High Court.

Again, although I raised it, I do not think the Minister has sufficiently assured me that the cost of that process would not be a burden on the beneficiary if they should enter into a dispute with the trust, and there is the use of trust resources by the trustees to defend or to promote their process. However, we in New Zealand First are sufficiently happy that there is the retention of the Māori Land Court to a certain extent, although we are not too happy with the fact that the High Court will be the court of final resolution.

The second point I want to make is the reference to general land and Māori land—Māori interests. I have no difficulty with that, and I have no difficulty with the High Court dealing with general land. However, I do have some difficulty where the High Court is being used to deal with Māori freehold land, and I think that is where the concern is in terms of the future retention of the trust corpus property.

Apart from that, the other Supplementary Order Paper 231 in terms of the Māori Television Service and the allocation of direct funding to Te Mātāwai—while that could be a management or an administrative issue, I was quite surprised to see that the Māori Purposes Bill was being used to enable that direct funding. I would have thought that the Minister would make that allocation through Te Puni Kōkiri and not resort to the need to utilise the Māori Purposes Bill. But, be that as it may, it has come before the House in Committee tonight, it has been included in this bill, and I suppose that is one of the purposes of the Māori Purposes Bill—to enable those omnibus decisions to be implemented. That was the point I wanted to make. Thank you.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): This is a sweep-up of, again, the issues that have been raised. I will try to get through them as quickly as I can. Earlier in the debate, there was the question about the retention, I think, of election records. I think it was raised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who talked about—I think it was—something to do with a 3-month period. It is true that the board must keep all the documentation relating to an election for a period of 3 months after that election and thereafter the board may destroy—and I think that is the key issue, “may”—or dispose of such records as it sees fit. At least everybody knows that it is there, and it is a part of the rules and documents that we have anyway, and that is at the discretion of the board. So I think that one covers that particular issue off.

The quorum of the board—again, Nanaia Mahuta raised this one. Again, the board must have at least five members and not more than seven. If five members are present then the quorum is three, and if there are seven members on the board, the quorum will be four. This is just clarifying that one.

Marama Davidson raised two issues, if I can address those. One was around the cut-off for the financial reporting, if I heard what she had to say. That was worked out between the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, IRD, and Te Puni Kōkiri, to align with the wider financial reporting regime as was originally intended. So I just provide that as response to that one.

Finally, as to the issue about the Māori Land Court, it is my advice that the Māori Land Court in this particular case continues under, obviously, Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act. It does have jurisdiction under various Acts, including this bill. Its jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act will change, but not under this bill. That is the advice I have, and thanks very much for the contributions.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 10 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Meka Whaitiri to clause 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

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

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 1A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 1B be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

In Committee

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move, That the Committee report progress so that the House can refer Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration of Supplementary Order Papers 279, 290, and 311.

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

Ayes 57

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

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary Provisions

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Ā, tēnā tātau katoa, titia tēnei kaupapa ki te ngākau, ki te wairua o tātau o Te Ao Māori, ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua puta i uta, i kāinga i ngā marama, i ngā tau kua hipa ake, anā, kua eke ki tēnei wā, i tēnei pō, huri noa i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Acknowledgments to us all. Adorn this matter to the heart and spirit of ours and of Māoridom. I commend the tenor of the sentiments that have emerged from the coastland and home in the months and past years right up to the present moment, to this evening. So to you collectively throughout our House, my congratulations and appreciation to us all.]

Can I start by, firstly, acknowledging the Māori Affairs Committee, which listened to submissions, the chair for carrying out the obligations of the committee, and, indeed, others who took his place throughout the debate. Can I also thank all of the submitters; many, many of them provided solid advice throughout the debate and discussions. I want particularly to thank all of the officials for the hard work that has been done over these last couple of years to get us to this point in time, and will, hopefully, thank them in another way at another time. But there has been a hell of a lot of work done, and, indeed, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the work that has been done to present the documents that sit on the Table. I also want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for his assistance and help as we have moved through this bill.

This bill is the most significant reform of Māori land law since Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. That Act refocused the law from one that assimilated and alienated Māori land to one that promoted its retention. However, a range of reviews have highlighted the need to give owners greater autonomy to make their own decisions about their land, as in mana motuhake, to enhance protections so that the remaining Māori land stays in Māori hands, as in taonga tuku iho, and to provide better support to enable owners to develop their land, whakawhanake. These matters underpin Part 1 of the bill.

The bill recognises the mana and tino rangatiratanga Māori exercise over our whenua, and protects the right of Māori land owners to retain, occupy, control, and develop our land. It might seem obvious, but the law has taken a long time to recognise mana and tino rangatiratanga, even though Māori land owners have consistently called for them to be recognised. The bill’s purpose statement is supported by a set of significant and important principles, which all decision makers will need to recognise. These include the principles that Māori land endures as taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa, that tikanga Māori is fundamental to matters involving Māori land, and that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land.

The bill is also underpinned by the idea that Māori land owners have the absolute right to design their own governance arrangements and to set rules making it harder to dispose of Māori land. The mana of decision making will sit with the owners, not with the Māori Land Court. Owners will also be able to refer matters they cannot agree on to a disputes resolution process.

The purpose and principles clauses reflect the concepts and align with the key principles expressed in the preamble of the current Act. The bill recognises the guarantees given to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ensures that the concept of retention continues to be one of the key focus points of Māori land law.

I would like to state very clearly that the bill will not lead to the loss of Māori land. In fact, the bill makes it harder to sell Māori land. The thresholds that need to be met for sales and permanent alienation are the same as those under the current Act, but with the major difference that owners will have the ability to increase these thresholds up to 100 percent if they so wish. That would make sales virtually impossible. Added to that, the bill makes it impossible to sell Māori freehold land that has been converted to collective ownerships and prevents the sale or acquisition of Māori customary land or land reserved as whenua tāpui. The bill gives the Māori Land Court a critical role in ensuring that the law relating to whenua Māori is observed. The level of protection for Māori land has never been stronger than it is under this particular bill.

Part 1 of the bill also contains the interpretation and related provisions. The terminology defined in this part reflects a deliberate change of focus, and has been carefully chosen to reflect modern drafting concepts—for example, “Māori reservation” will become “whenua tāpui”, “agent” will become “kaiwhakahaere”, “preferred classes of alienees” will become “preferred recipients”, “alienation” will become “disposition”, and “undivided interest” will become “individual freehold interest”. Other new terms reflect new concepts in the bill such as kaiwhakahaere, kaiwhakamarumaru, kaitiaki, and rangatōpū.

Part 1 of the bill also recognises an important feature, and that is that tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land and the law must give way to tikanga on a range of matters. For instance, tikanga Māori will determine relationships of descent when whāngai and adoptions are involved. It will also determine eligibility to become an owner of Māori land. Care has been taken to avoid codifying what constitutes tikanga Māori. The bill directs courts to determine any question as to tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation on the basis of evidence.

I have tabled some Supplementary Order Papers that amend various aspects of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 279 addresses concerns that the proposal to address barriers contained in other laws that prevent Māori using their land do not go far enough. Provisions are included that relate to the application of the Public Works Act, discussed a little bit earlier, the rating of Māori land, and the application of the Rates Rebate Scheme. This Supplementary Order Paper also makes a number of minor and technical amendments to Part 1, as well as to other parts of the bill, that were identified through quality assurance and peer review processes. As is the practice with legislation of this kind, this Supplementary Order Paper is in the form of a revision-tracked version of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 279 has been supplemented by two others that include consequential amendments to the Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991 and provide for a review of the new Act 7 years after it comes into force.

I would like to take the opportunity to comment on a point that has been repeatedly raised about the reforms—namely, that they have been rushed and that Māori land owners have not been adequately consulted. I particularly want to address this in relation to the purpose and principles, given their importance to the way the bill has been interpreted and applied.

The bill has been developed through a long, thorough, and considered process of review and engagement. Over the past 4 years 171 consultation hui and wānanga workshops have been held. Drawing on the experience of owners and other people with an interest in Māori land, appropriate changes have been made to improve specific aspects of the bill. For instance, the evolution of the purpose and the principles began with the aims of the reform articulated by the review panel. Initial drafting was developed in conjunction with iwi advisers, reviewed, and then developed on the basis of submissions received on the exposure draft that was released in 2015, and was further refined following feedback on a further draft that I released in 2016. This has been a careful and thorough process of listening and reflecting, not just over months but actually years.

Through Part 1 of the bill, the reform seeks to strengthen Māori land ownership to ensure no more whenua is lost unnecessarily and to let whānau make decisions about their land in the way they believe is appropriate.

I look forward to the debate, which is likely to be fairly lengthy, bearing in mind this is a big piece of legislation. I look forward to the discussion and the input from all members across the House. I encourage members to work together to achieve the admirable goals that I think are implicit in what we are doing about whenua Māori. Kia ora tātou.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair, tēnei ahau tū ake nei hei mihi ki a tātau katoa i te tīmatanga o tēnei pire tino nui, tino mātotoru, tino hōhonu, tino whānui, tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi o Te Minita ki Te Komiti Take Māori me ngā āpiha o Te Komiti ēngari i runga i wēna kōrero, horekau Te Rōpū Reipa e tautokongia ana i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise specifically to acknowledge us all at the start of this really important, dense, profound, and extensive bill. I endorse the accolades of the Minister to the Māori Affairs Committee and its officials, but on those sentiments the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill.]

I would just like to acknowledge everybody, and in particular the Māori Affairs Committee. We have put a lot of effort into this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the officials who have also put a lot of work into this bill, and, actually, I would like to acknowledge my colleague Meka Whaitiri, who knows this bill back to front despite not being a permanent member of the Māori Affairs Committee.

All that said, the Labour Party does not support the bill. There are a number of reasons why we do not support it. We will go through those reasons clause by clause, part by part. I just want to start off by rebutting, I guess, some of the Minister’s comments. He said there has been widespread consultation, and I guess there have been a number of hui, but let us just remind everybody of those 20 consultation hui for the exposure draft. Of those 20 hui, Labour members of Parliament attended 14, and in not one of those 14 hui did the people support the bill. In fact, the two hui that I attended in Tai Tokerau—in Kaikohe and Whangarei—there was almost outright anarchy, with people moving motions left, right, and centre to have the bill chucked out. OK, admittedly, that was Peeni Henare’s whanaunga and we have got to make allowances—they are not mine, of course. Ha, ha!

Admittedly, that was to an exposure draft. I do not believe the changes that have been made since—and there have been many—have actually been absorbed by the people. They do not understand them. I do not think they have had time to understand them. This thick Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 279 that I have here in front of me—the Minister rang me up about a month ago and said that it was coming out, and that is fair enough. But even up until last week there were more SOPs coming out. Our people certainly would not have time to look at them, absorb them, and understand what they mean. There is a deep-seated mistrust of this process.

I would like to just start at clause 3(3). It says—this is the very first clause that we are debating here—“The purpose of Parts 1 to 9 is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands …”. I just want to repeat the part there that I believe is relevant to what I am going to say: “for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands …”. What that clause is saying—the very first three lines that we are debating—is that Māori have mana and tino rangatiratanga over their lands. If that is the case, why then this bill? If we already have mana, if we already have tino rangatiratanga, and if we already have the ability to have the final word on our land, and we have got that under the current Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, why is it that this bill is indeed necessary?

It goes on to say—this is still clause 3(3)—that it is “to protect the right of owners of Māori land to retain, control, occupy, and develop their land as a taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū.” You know, we agree that that is what we want from any bill—for Māori to retain and control and occupy and develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations. We believe that that already exists and, respectfully, we dispute that this bill goes any way to actually improving the outcomes for Māori.

The principles that the Minister has mentioned are these, and there are six of them. I agree—and this is in clause 3(4)—with the first three. The next three I have questions about. The first principle is: “(a) Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa:”. I have got no problems with that.

The second principle is: “(b) tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land:”. I have no problems with that, although tikanga—further on in the bill it talks about “the tikanga of the whānau, hapū, … [should] prevail”. I have real concerns, not so much about the use of tikanga; it is just that I know that in many whānau, tikanga does not exist. In many hapū, tikanga does not exist. We live in a bit of a fluffy world where tikanga is now observed by everybody, and it is solid and we can fall back on it and lean back on it. But the reality is that tikanga these days, in many whānau and in many hapū, is just a floating beast and it does not exist in the ideal world that, probably, our tūpuna lived in.

In the third principle, clause (4)(c), it says: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land:”—actually, sorry, I do support that. The comment I wanted to make is that I am glad it says “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, even though this is the English version that I am reading out. The Māori version of the bill is the version that takes precedence over the English version. People may wonder: “Well, why, then, in the English version does it say ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ and not ‘the Treaty of Waitangi’?”. The reason is, basically, this: do not ever dare go into Ngāpuhi and say that our tūpuna signed “the Treaty of Waitangi”. They signed “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, and there are differences between the two versions of the Treaty, Te Tiriti—sorry, I just fell into the trap myself. There are subtle differences to “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and “the Treaty of Waitangi”, and under the Māori version, Ngāpuhi will affirm that we did not cede sovereignty.

Then we come to the three principles that I have concerns about, and the fourth principle, clause 3(4)(d), says: “owners of Māori land have the right to decide how their land is used:”. On the outside that sounds really good, but it is the issue of owners, and which owners? In this bill—and we will go through this in some detail over the course of the debate—there are some owners who have more nous, more clout, more resources, and more understanding than other owners. When we go through things and we see participation thresholds, we will see and we will debate the fact that not all owners have an equal say. So if somebody is not a participating owner, or, for whatever reason, somebody cannot attend a hui to participate or give their proxy, the chances are that they may miss out on actually being involved in having the right to decide how their land is used.

One of the big concerns about this bill is that it is actually going to pit whanaunga against whanaunga. Despite all the intentions—and, you know, things look OK on the outside—when we get down to it, when there are a thousand owners who own a piece of land and there are, say, 20 who want to make changes, and those 20 are articulate and know the law and know this bill back to front, they will have the ability to laud it, for want of a better word, over those whanaunga who are disengaged, who may live overseas, who may not hear about the meeting. There are just too many variables there for me to accept that we can say “owners”, meaning all owners of Māori land, have the right to decide how their land is used.

The next principle is “owners of Māori land have the right to take advantage of opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū:”—again, future generations of which of the owners? If there are some owners who do not have the opportunity to participate in the decision making for whatever reason, and there could be a million reasons, how is it that their descendants will not then have their tūpuna actually speaking for them when it comes down to that principle? The next principle, and the last principle—

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Well, we are finally here, debating Te Ture Whenua. Because of the complexity around this bill—we have 16 parts and a number of schedules. It is not for me to say, but I would really encourage the Minister, at the beginning of each part—if he could outlay what he thinks that part is. We have had so many amendments, and I think that would help our debate and would focus our debate. So that would be great, Minister Flavell.

Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”—so, simply, what is this bill about? This part is about outlining, obviously, the intentions behind the bill, and the Minister did touch on that in his introductory delivery. I too want to particularly address clause 5 of Part 1, which talks about the interpretation, and to just raise, for the benefit of the Committee, the interpretation of new terms and positions both in English and in Te Reo. So, terms and positions like “chief executive”—the chief executive of a yet to be defined Māori Land Service. That is contained in clause 5, this new person. As we go through the bill you will see more and more of the powers and responsibilities this chief executive will have over the Māori Land Service, which we are yet to see any detail of at this point in time.

The Minister did touch on “kaitiaki”. We had submitters who came in front of the Māori Affairs Committee who said: “I don’t want to be known as a kaitiaki; I’m a trustee.” So, obviously, from some trustees there are issues with that term, “kaitiaki”, when, really, for them they are a trustee. The other term is “kaiwhakahaere”, which is raised under clause 5, “Interpretation”. Again, this kaiwhakahaere, in terms of their appointment and who appoints them—it explains that. “Kaiwhakamarumaru”—another concept—again, appointed by the court. For this one in particular it is around under-age people who are under 18, or people incapable of running their own affairs—the court will appoint somebody to run their affairs on their behalf. You have got another term called “kawenata tiaki whenua”. So the point I am making in referencing these interpretations is that it can lead to an enormous amount of uncertainty and confusion, simply because we have got terms there that Māori land owners are still coming to grips with.

If I turn to clause 7(7), the Minister in his opening speech talked about how it was almost guaranteed that there will be no further Māori alienation. I guess, as I look through this bill I am looking for the opportunities—I take the Minister at his word that there will not be any provisions in this bill that could enable Māori land owners to lose their land. But in terms of clause 7(7) it talks about making statement that the kaiwhakamarumaru, for all intents and purposes, should be treated as the owner. So this is not the point around alienation; what it is talking about is that the power of an owner is given to a court-appointed person to run land interests on behalf of an under-age person or someone incapable of running their own affairs. So, for me, that throws up some potential alarm bells. If the kaiwhakamarumaru should be treated as the owner, then how do the real owners—and, yes, Part 1 does talk about beneficial interests, but, for me: how do the kaiwhakamarumaru and the real owners ensure that their land interests are adhered to?

In Part 1, in clause 7A(1)(c), I just note with interest that there is a kind of exception clause that talks about the CNI exception. [Interruption] Yes. It is clause 7A(1)(c). In this clause of Part 1 it is talking about association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori, and then it goes through, again, consistency with the parts from 1 to 9. In this clause it is talking about association with land in accordance—and paragraph (c) talks about the successor of CIL, or SINA land—

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: SILNA.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes—“land, as those terms are defined by section 446 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998:”. I do not have an issue with that, but my question to you is: are there any other iwi or hapū that could be included under that particular clause in Part 1? So that was just a question that I thought I would ask and see if you would be able to answer.

In clause 9 of Part 1, where we are talking about “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori”, it explains in this clause that “In any proceedings under Parts 1 to 9, any question as to the tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation must be determined on the basis of evidence.” The Minister did cover that in his introductory comments. I guess my question is: whose evidence? Whose evidence? If we take it down into tikanga, and even within whānau, like my colleague Kelvin Davis said, we have all got different tikanga depending on the occasion and the situation. So I see there, potentially, some problems around defining on whose evidence we will be making a judgment call on which tikanga applies in that particular circumstance.

This Part 1 is important to Māori land owners because this bill outlines its purpose, and yet there have been numerous concerns around not just the genesis of the bill but the process by which the bill has come up. We must remind ourselves in this Committee that this is not an amendment of the Act; this is a complete rewrite. So we are rewriting a significant piece of legislation that guides Māori land in this country. The contents of this bill are completely untested, and there is no case law to guide either the Māori Land Court or landowners when interpreting this. So I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of the introduction to the bill. That is his interpretation, but for Māori land owners they will have to go to the Māori Land Court to get the interpretation of this bill realised. All I am saying is that that is going to take several years, so I am just making the point: the bill is complex and there have been many, many amendments. The most recent was just yesterday when we got three Supplementary Order Papers from the Minister—hence my motion to try to get this to be referred back to the Māori Affairs Committee so we could properly scrutinise them.

The process has been woeful. It has been woeful, leading the Waitangi Tribunal to recommend more consultations and empirical analysis of the barriers to Māori land development. As my colleague Kelvin Davis has referenced, with the principles in Part 1, in terms of meeting the obligations of the Treaty, it is really important, as we go through this bill—and I will give the Committee the assurances that I am looking through the contents of each clause against the guiding principles in the Minister’s bill. I will throw up clauses where I think that it actually puts at risk those core principles of ensuring that Māori land owners have the right to make decisions on their land and that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld. As we go through this in this debate, we will find that from my analysis and my assessment of the parts—

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Whoa! So here is the proposal for the Act in and of itself. It is huge, and it is a big telephone book - sized thing. Then you have got the Supplementary Order Paper, which is about the same size. We, the Green Party, really wanted to support Meka Whaitiri’s point of order to have the Supplementary Order Paper referred back the Māori Affairs Committee. I regret that we have not been able to do that.

I want to put on record just a couple of quick points in this Part 1 debate in the Committee of the whole House stage, probably picking up mainly on the principles relating to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Greens will not be supporting Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I think, in terms of the principles in Part 1, we will continue to uphold that the whole entire land reform absolutely needs to be driven by Māori. It concerns Māori land. It needs to be fully understood, fully driven, and fully accepted by Māori. I do want to thank the advisers and all of the work that has gone into this enormous set of reforms. The advisers have been on the select committee through this particular piece of legislation, and have been incredibly grateful to them—for the advice we continue to receive, and also for the attempts from the advisers and from the officials to help us on the Māori Affairs Committee come to terms with what we were dealing with.

My colleagues and I on the Māori Affairs Committee were somewhat vindicated when it became known that we were not just struggling ourselves to fully comprehend all of this bill—that, actually, Māori Land Court judges and Māori lawyers were themselves also constantly advocating how large and unwieldy this piece of legislation was. In that respect, I do want to thank the officials and the advisers for trying really hard to help us all understand it clause by clause and come up with clear summaries and presentations to help us understand that.

Notwithstanding their incredible hard work and their openness to engage with all of us, I think at the core of the Greens’ opposition is that—quite differently from the previous bill we just debated, the Māori Purposes Bill, where that was driven and worked with the group concerned—we are yet to see the mandate, the understanding, and the drive from Māori on a collective basis to this piece of legislation. That is notwithstanding that, actually, some or most of the changes could actually be beneficial. We have to first at least understand that.

I just wanted to go back and pick up on the Part 1 principles. The Waitangi Tribunal, after its analysis, and notwithstanding all the subsequent amendments, did stipulate that if we are going to be making such large reforms to address the barriers to Māori land utilisation and to prevent further Māori land loss and alienation, then we need to at least be very sure about what is causing that in the first place.

The Green Party was very clear in our support through all the readings that the empirical research should have been done so that we at least had a clear, evidence-based reference point to start with where we actually knew exactly what the barriers and what the challenges were, and we could perhaps address them more specifically. So reasons of mandate and reasons of having a clear, evidence-based research platform are just two of the main, top, overall reasons why the Greens will continue to oppose this Te Ture Whenua legislation overall.

I wanted to, probably lastly, just pick up on the Minister’s address at the beginning of this Committee of the whole House stage where he touched on the consultation that has been held with this bill. I have maintained that the indication of the success of the consultation should not just come down to numbers. A successful consultation for any legislation should not just rest on how many hui and meetings were held around the country. What I would prefer instead is if the consultations were able to provide us with a clear mandate and understanding from all of our people, from all of our landowners.

I think, just lastly, in this particular call at this place, in terms of principles in upholding tikanga Māori through land governance, I wanted to agree with my colleague Kelvin Davis that we are wary of setting up or upholding the inequities between different whānau and land groupings and holdings and organisations. We are wary and we feel that these matters are too important and that we do not have clear direction about the success. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I want to preface my contribution to this debate by signalling that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill, and it will be for various reasons, and there will be a number of speakers during the course of this debate who will express their own views.

I want to pick up on the comments made in reference to the number of consultation meetings. I suppose Minister Flavell and his department should be commended for that number, but I think where it falls down is that no comment has been made about how many of those consultation hui actually said they supported the bill. You might have discussed it, but none of them that I am aware of actually said: “We support the bill. Go to it, Minister, and make the changes.” While I would support the notion that the old legislation, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, should have had some changes, I used the analogy in my second reading speech that said that all that Act really needed was to fix the flat tire, not to replace the whole car. I think this is what we are seeing now, and that is why it has taken so long for this bill to come before the Committee at this stage.

I think that the Minister is making a mistake in railroading this bill through the House, because I know that there are a number of Māori organisations, even at this stage, that supported the notion of making some changes to the legislation, but, having made those changes now, they do not support the bill to the same extent that they indicated to the Minister during the early stages.

I also want to make comment that in the submission made by the Māori Land Court judges—and I thought it was a very good submission because they, being involved in the administration of Māori land by virtue of being judges in the Māori Land Court, had a clear understanding of the Act. Amongst their concerns was the introduction of a number of different concepts that they described as legally untested, things “such as ‘kaitiaki’ of governance bodies, ‘rangatōpu’ and ‘relationships of descent’, amongst others. It will introduce an extensive new lexicon of statutory terms previously unknown.” We have heard from my colleagues who have spoken before me this evening making reference to some of those terms, particularly in the area of the principles of Parts 1 to 9 of the bill, as outlined in clause 3(4). One of the principles is that “tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land;”. I have no problem with that, but I would say to you, Minister Flavell, that a lot of Māori today do not look at it in terms of tikanga; they look at in terms of their entitlement, irrespective of the size of the interest that they might have.

I certainly agree with the reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is in recognition of the Treaty that was actually signed by our tūpuna. The principle of owners of Māori land having the right to decide how the Māori land is used—that has always been there. That is nothing new. I think the problem has been their ability to be able to use it. I am hoping that this bill will provide easy access for our people to use their land, but we know that is not so much the access to how they use their land, but having the resources to do so. I do not think that this bill addresses that issue, because it cannot. At the end of the day, if you do not have the financial resources, then you are not going to make any difference to the present situation. While the Minister has established a development fund, that in itself is not enough for the real issue, because of the amount of Māori land that is unused.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare. Kia ora. In opening my contribution, I want to start with some general comments before I delve deeper into some of the interpretations and explanations that some of my colleagues have already covered. I want to go a little bit further into some of those and, perhaps, offer my perspective on them. For the most part, I believe, and, certainly, this side of the Chamber believes, that this bill actually fails to provide security of Māori land, the retention of Māori land. More importantly, it fails to empower our people to utilise their Māori land, and I pick up the point made by my tuakana Pita Paraone with regard to the fact that resourcing is an important part to address—the 22 years of struggle that Māori people have had with regard to their land. I say 22 years of struggle because I believe that before we are able to move on into a better bill, a more robust bill, it is important that we address, first and foremost, the issues that have been faced by our people over the past 22 years, and do it meaningfully. I understand the advisers and the panel took a principled approach towards their consultation on this bill. Instead of asking what the problems are, they were asking: “How can we make things better for you?”. I do not believe that this addresses the issues that were faced by Māori land owners over a number of years.

I want to get straight into clause 8 and the term “Descent relationships determined by tikanga Māori”. I have heard a mixture of responses to the use of tikanga in legislation throughout this particular debate, and I have, indeed, in many bills that have come through this House in my short time here. I have made my point very clear: I am not a fan of tikanga Māori being used in legislation, because of some of the reasons already mentioned by my colleagues about interpretation, about true intent, tikanga tangata, tikanga wairua—all of these other issues that raise more questions than answers. This particular part, “Descent relationships determined by tikanga Māori”—clause 8(1) “This section applies to a provision of Parts 1 to 9 that depends on there being a relationship of descent between people, such as a provision that refers to—(a) a child, grandchild, brother, sister, parent, grandparent, whānau, or descendant; or (b) an association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori.”

The number of Māori who currently live in Australia is no secret. Under my understanding of tikanga, I would argue that once ahi kā is lost, according to tikanga, it is whenua mātao: the land is cold. There is no ability for that person to go back there. Why? Because they gave up their right. They gave it up. That is tikanga. That is what tikanga tells me. Now, I wonder how that argument would go down in the kāinga of the Māori people in Australia. I wonder how that discussion would go down even interstate here in Aotearoa New Zealand, where, for many whānau, they do not actually live in their homeland. In fact, recent statistics say that only 13 percent of Ngāpuhi actually live in Ngāpuhi—only 13 percent. So under tikanga one could argue, if they were of this particular mind, that, well, when they moved to Auckland—we are now three generations, four generations of te whānau being in Tāmaki-makau-rau. They now have given up their right of ahi kā, which now—whenua matao. Then it links to the arguments made by my colleagues here that you get the small shareholders being ignored, or, even worse, you get the tail wagging the dog, whereby the small shareholders look to have a bigger say in the development or the administration of land. So those are important issues.

Where do we base this kind of tikanga from? I tell you that my interpretation of this, when I consider tikanga, actually goes back to the time of our tupuna. In the previous bill we discussed Te Rarawa. For those who know their—[Bell rung] Thank you—

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

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill with amendment, the Māori Purposes Bill with amendment, and progress on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.