Thursday, 4 May 2017

THURSDAY, 4 MAY 2017

THURSDAY, 4 MAY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 9 May the Government will look to complete the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, and progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, 10 May will be a members’ day.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to congratulate Simon Bridges on his promotion. He certainly has big shoes to fill. Could I ask him, through you, Mr Speaker, whether or not the Government has any plans to put the House into urgency when we return after next week?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I am flattered by those complimentary remarks by the member. We will just have to wait and see what happens in relation to urgency.

Points of Order

Ministerial Statements—Outbreak of Myrtle Rust in Kerikeri

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know whether or not the Minister of Primary Industries intends to make a ministerial statement about the outbreak of myrtle rust in Kerikeri, in my electorate. It is a major threat to the industries of my electorate and, indeed, to the rest of the country.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s concern, but that is not a point of order.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Household Labour Force Survey, Youth Unemployment, and Wages

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statements yesterday on the Household Labour Force Survey; if so, by how much has the number of 15 to 24-year-olds who are not in employment, education, or training increased since his Government took office?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, I certainly do stand by my statements on yesterday’s household labour force survey, which showed, amongst other things, that unemployment in the March quarter stood at 4.9 percent. I stand by my comment that an extra 29,000 people are now employed compared with the previous quarter, and, in total, we now have well over 2.5 million people employed in this country for the first time. In regard to the number of 15 to 24-year-olds who are not in employment, education, or training, it stood at 86,000 in the March 2017 quarter, out of a total of 674,000 people in that age group. That compares with 78,000 when the Government took office in the first quarter of 2009, out of a much smaller group of 604,000 in that cohort.

Grant Robertson: Is it not in fact correct that there are nearly 27,000 more young New Zealanders not earning or learning since his Government came into office?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I have just compared for the member the first quarter of 2009 versus the first quarter in 2017. The difference is an increase of 8,000, but the population of that age group has gone up around 70,000 at the same time.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, is it not further correct that since last year—at exactly the same time—the number of young New Zealanders not earning or learning has increased by 4,000, or 5 percent?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member can make those assertions, but what he is trying to skip is that the population in that 15 to 24 age group is increasing over the same time. So it stands to reason that even though the proportion is dropping slightly since we have come into office, there are slightly more people in total because the population of that group has gone from 603,000 to 674,000 over that time. But I do bring good news for the member, because I have had a look at the numbers for him. If you look at the 86,000 people listed as young people not in education, employment, or training in the March quarter, 16,000 of them are not in the labour force because they are involved in caregiving, presumably for young children; 38,000 are not in education at all and not in the workforce—those are the people who are having a gap year, and so on; leaving 32,000 people who are looking for work and are not in education. That is lower than the adult population unemployment rate—it is 4.7 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need somewhat less interjection, please.

Grant Robertson: Are there 4,000 more people aged between 15 and 24 not in employment, not in education, and not in training since March last year, and how can he be so proud of that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is forgetting to look at the number of people overall.

Grant Robertson: In a year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes. Since March of last year the New Zealand population of 15 to 24-year-olds has gone up by 11,000 people. So yes, there are 4,000 more listed as not in education, employment, or training, but the total population of that age group has gone up by 11,000 people.

Grant Robertson: In light of his statement yesterday with regard to the household labour force survey that inflation is running at 2.2 percent, can he confirm that 67 percent of New Zealanders received a pay rise of less than 2 percent last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot. I would have to see the reasons for the member making that assertion. What I can tell him is that average weekly wages went up either 2.1 or 2.2 percent over the same year, which was roughly the same rate as inflation.

Grant Robertson: Does he think that New Zealanders are getting a fair share in prosperity when more than two-thirds of workers got a pay rise less than inflation, when the cost of food and petrol increased by more than average inflation, and when housing costs increased, on average, by 11 percent—or is he not on the side of those New Zealanders?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am certainly on the side of New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—and am also on the side of literally financial New Zealanders, and I am sorry the member, in his assertions, is wrong, because, actually, housing costs are included in the cost of living adjustments in the Consumers Price Index.

Grant Robertson: No they’re not.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They are. So I do have those concerns, and I would say at the moment that wages are going up at about the same rate as inflation, according to the statistics yesterday. But the solution, in terms of increasing wages further, is to continue to strongly grow the economy—as we are seeing—and to continue to see strong job growth. That also leads to strong income growth, as we have seen in the last several years.

Government Financial Position—Debt and Measures to Address

2. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s plan for reducing net debt as a percentage of GDP?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): So far we have made very good progress in reducing the Government’s debt, as measured against the size of our economy. Net debt peaked at just under 26 percent of GDP, following both the global financial crisis (GFC) and the Canterbury earthquakes. It is expected to be around 24 percent of GDP by the end of this year. We are forecasting to achieve our short-term target of reducing net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020. All this has been achieved after New Zealand was forced to weather the shocks of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes, and, of course, more recently, the Kaikōura earthquakes. Supporting Kiwi families through these events resulted in the country borrowing significant sums of money—approximately an extra 20 percent of GDP.

Todd Muller: Once the Government has achieved its net debt target, what will the new medium-term goal be?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I announced last week that the Government will set a new medium-term fiscal target of reducing net debt to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025. We are a geologically young country and we are also a small country in an often turbulent world, so there are plenty of risks and shocks ahead of us. The GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes taught us that they come along at any time, and sometimes together.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will notice that the Minister of Finance is taking an extraordinarily long time to answer questions—for example, he was asked in the primary question: what is the plan for reducing net debt? It is not a history lesson; it is a question about the future plan.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why?

Mr SPEAKER: Because I asked him to resume his seat. I am the judge of the length of answers and I am judging the relevance of a subsequent supplementary question. The supplementary question was definitely in order. The Minister has every right to answer it, and I will judge whether the answer goes on for too long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You may well judge that, but I am entitled to raise under the Standing Orders a point of order and outline why some members of this House find that his answers are not satisfactory. We have an entitlement to do that. Yes, you can judge whether or not we are making out the case, but you will not stop us from making it out.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate the member’s point of order, but I am a bit confused because I would have thought that New Zealand’s resilience to natural disasters is a very important issue, not just for this House but for this country. The member may want to make a point about saying that it is not of interest to him, and that is fine. But I do think that most New Zealanders would consider our ability to respond to earthquakes and other natural disasters to be very important. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite enough from both members. As I have—[Interruption] Order! As I have said, I will judge the length of answers. I want them to be relevant, but I thought the subsequent supplementary question was an important one. I would have thought most of the House was interested in future net debt targets. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you. With net debt at around 10 to 15 percent of GDP, New Zealand would have the capacity to absorb more than one shock without extra taxes and without slashing people’s entitlements, and that is what will be important to New Zealanders.

Todd Muller: How achievable is a net debt target of between 10 and 15 percent of GDP?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is achievable because the Government’s books are now in good shape, and rising surpluses are predicted over the forecast period. It is backed up by a New Zealand economy that has now experienced nearly 6 years of continuous growth, together with unemployment falling yesterday to 4.9 percent. This is one of the dividends New Zealand gets from an innovative economy that allows us to reduce debt so we can respond to whatever the future has in store not just for the current population but, of course, for our children and grandchildren.

Todd Muller: How will this new debt target help New Zealand respond to major shocks?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: You only have to look as far as the front page of the Wellington newspaper this morning to see the importance of ensuring that New Zealand has buffers against major shocks. It was suggested in that report that there is a new report produced saying that a major earthquake in Wellington would force the capital city to move to Auckland. I do not agree with that, and I think most Wellingtonians would not agree with that. The reality is that if you can afford to protect urban centres like Wellington after a big earthquake, then we do not have to consider moving the capital city. So, with sensible investments in infrastructure and prudent levels of debt, Mr Peters, then we can make sure that the capital city stays in Wellington.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are you going on about now?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Grumpy old prick.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know there is a robust exchange in the House, but the Minister of Finance did use an extremely unparliamentary term to describe the leader of New Zealand First.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the interjection; I did not hear where it came from, but now that it has been identified, I require the Minister to stand, withdraw—[Interruption] Order! The member is not yet in this position; he might be at some stage in the future. I require the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—United Nations Security Council Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Territory

3. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he support the New Zealand sponsored UN Security Council resolution of 23 December 2016 that condemned the expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Minister, then, reaffirm to this House today the Security Council Resolution 2334 and the Government’s longstanding policy that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said in the primary answer, yes, we do support the New Zealand - sponsored UN Security Council resolution, as the member has said, but I think, on behalf of the Minister, the broader point is that a peaceful resolution will require engagement by both Israel and the Palestinians. That is what he is focused on.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister, then, disagree with the former Minister of Foreign Affairs that “continuing settlement growth at anything like the current rate will render the two state solution a purely academic concept. There will be nothing left to negotiate.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: He is interested in looking forward rather than looking backward. He does support, certainly, the previous foreign affairs Minister.

Grant Robertson: Backward to the things you did support!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, he is a forward-looking Minister, is Gerry Brownlee; if there is anything we can say about that man—forward looking. He is very focused on actually supporting the resolution that we put forward. But, as he says, he is actually more focused on the engagement of both Israel and the Palestinians. His position is that settlements undermine that two-State solution.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the Minister’s forward-looking comment—that New Zealand should not make pronouncements on issues in the Middle East—if a foreign Government were to illegally occupy New Zealand territory, would the Minister expect our allies to condemn the action or follow his lead and not make pronouncements about how either party involved should behave?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is simply hypothetical, and I would not comment.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister disagree with the UN Secretary-General’s comment—which was not hypothetical—who 4 days ago expressed “disappointment and alarm of the decision by Israel to build a new settlement”, and “condemns all unilateral actions that … threaten peace and undermine the two-State solution.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sorry, I have not seen those comments, and, as such, I could not comment on those comments that I have not seen.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the Minister’s comment this morning on radio that the resolution was “premature”, does the Minister agree with the New Zealand ambassador to the United Nations, who said at the Security Council meeting on the day of 23 December: “Today’s resolution confirmed principles that have long been accepted in the United Nations … While more could have been done, the text was achievable ‘right now’.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe those comments around being premature were more in light of the fact that we would have liked to give Israel notice of the resolution, and our part in that, but did not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, foreign Minister, that the resolution was not in line with longstanding New Zealand policy; second, that it did not go to Cabinet as required by the manual because of the denunciation aspects; and, third, that that is why he is trying to backtrack on it now?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I disagree. It is in line with long-term policy. While the resolution did not therefore need to go to Cabinet, the short-term notice of it, though—being on 22 December and then happening on the 24th—meant that there was no Cabinet in that time anyway. But according to the Cabinet Manual it did not need to go.

Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill—Exposure Draft Release

4. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has he made in relation to Pay Equity?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I have recently announced the release of an exposure draft of the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill for public consultation. This Government is committed to achieving an effective framework to provide a practical process for employees to follow if they feel they are not being paid fairly due to gender discrimination. Consultation on the pay equity bill follows the recommendations of the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles and is an important step towards closing the gender pay gap. I encourage the public to get involved in the consultation process and make sure they have their say on this important piece of legislation before consultation closes on 11 May.

Sarah Dowie: Why is new pay equity legislation being introduced?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Equal Pay Act 1972 is not equipped to provide guidance on pay equity claims and needs to be updated to provide a practical, fair, and workable process for employees and employers to follow. Importantly, the draft bill provides a framework for choosing an appropriate comparable role—something the joint working group was not able to reach agreement on. The guidance in the draft pay equity bill complements the Government’s $2 billion pay equity settlement for some of the health sector’s lowest-paid workers. I look forward to constructive contributions from interested parties.

Sarah Dowie: What reports has he seen on the exposure draft bill?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have seen several reports that state that the Terranova settlement could not have been achieved under the proposed bill. These statements are simply not accurate. Parties to a pay equity claim are encouraged to negotiate first, and try to reach a mutually acceptable comparator on their own. Of significance, the recent $2 billion Terranova settlement was agreed to by all parties within parameters outlined in the exposure draft bill regarding comparators. Parties agreed on an occupation from within the health sector as an appropriate comparator. I also note the law guiding the proximity of comparators for pay equity claims in other jurisdictions, including the European Union, the UK, and parts of Canada, are confined to within the same workplace, company, enterprise, or employment. In Australia, where comparative proximity has been established through case law, comparators are thus far confined to the same industry. So what the Government is proposing, by way of proximity, is actually much more liberal than any other comparable jurisdiction.

Better Public Services Targets—Reduction in Reoffending

5. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she stand by the statement of her predecessor, “breaking the cycle of imprisonment and reoffending is a key focus of this Government. That’s why we set the ambitious and challenging goal of reducing prisoner reoffending by 25 percent by 2017”; if so, does she agree with the decision to drop the Better Public Services target of reducing re-offending by 25 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister of Corrections): I welcome the member’s interest, and the first question to me in the first 6 months of my being the Minister—

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: These targets were always meant to be challenging. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is an example of why the start of that answer was not helpful. I now cannot hear the substantive part of the answer. I require the Minister to start it again, certainly without the first sentence or two.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Better Public Services (BPS) targets were always meant to be challenging. We have seen an improvement in people’s lives as a result. Reducing reoffending remains a supporting measure. The September 2016 BPS results show a 4.4 percent reduction in reoffending, meaning that there have been over 9,400 fewer reoffenders and almost 38,000 fewer victims of crime since 2011. The Government continues to track the rate of reoffending and to invest significantly in rehabilitation and reintegration. In 2015-16 we invested $176 million in rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, with a goal of breaking the cycle of reoffending.

Kelvin Davis: In light of that answer, what percentage of the $176 million spent in 2015-16 on services to reintegrate and rehabilitate offenders actually worked, given that Corrections achieved a target about 80 percent below where it was aiming?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, this Government proudly set what was actually a world-leading target to reduce reoffending, because of the impact on people’s lives and the reality that the reduction of crime is significant for people in New Zealand. Currently, 13 percent of the Corrections budget is spent on programmes that support their rehabilitation, training, education, and drug and alcohol treatments, and programmes of that type.

Kelvin Davis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask what percent of the $176 million that the Minister said actually worked, given that it fell 80 percent below the target it was trying to achieve.

Mr SPEAKER: My job is to judge whether the question has been addressed. The Minister certainly gave the percentage of the budget spent then on rehabilitation. I think to expect any Government department to have analysed what percentage of that has actually worked would be near impossible.

Kelvin Davis: Does she agree with Newshub that her failure to reduce reoffending by 25 percent is “a fail in anyone’s books”; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: A 4.4 percent reduction is, I think, progress in the right directions. As I have said, that is 38,000—38,000—fewer victims of crime. Actually, I think that is a win for the Government.

Kelvin Davis: Does she accept that her Government’s new target of reducing serious crime by 10,000 will put more pressure on the Corrections system, given that it does not even reduce it to a level below that of June 2016 and excludes sexual and family violence?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The refresh of the Better Public Services targets are really focused in language that New Zealanders understand and value. Absolutely, up and down this country, New Zealanders are saying they want to see fewer serious crimes. That is exactly what this Better Public Services target says. In all of the prisons that I have visited—and the Corrections staff that I have spoken with—they are 100 percent committed to reducing reoffending.

Kelvin Davis: How does she stand by her department’s claim that “Corrections has a comprehensive and well-designed conceptual framework for achieving reductions in reoffending rates.” in light of the failure to get within cooee of reducing the reoffending target?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my primary answer, I think the results, in terms of where we are at currently, are significant. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, and that is why we are open to suggestions on how else we can tackle some of these very, very challenging offenders. The ones whom we have in currently are the ones who are the recidivist reoffenders. They are in for more serious crimes, some of them are in for longer sentences, and, unfortunately, we now have a higher gang percentage of prisoners than we did when we started this Better Public Services work.

Kelvin Davis: Does this sentence on rehabilitation programmes, from her department’s annual report, not explain in a nutshell why her Government failed to meet its target: “The rates of some programmes reported are small and below the level of statistical significance.”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: And in response to that, the Auditor-General’s report indicates that the work that is done by Corrections is evaluated on an ongoing basis. Of course, I am very keen for Corrections to try new things. If they assess them and they do not work, absolutely we will try something else.

Economy—Employment

6. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What reports has he received on the rate of employment in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Yesterday Statistics New Zealand released the quarterly household labour force survey, which showed our unemployment rate is again 4.9 percent. Our record levels of labour force participation also continue, with the rate increasing to 70.6 percent. In real terms there are 29,000 more Kiwis employed in the past 3 months, as job growth continues to be faster than population growth. We are in the middle of a jobs boom. The numbers show the Government’s comprehensive economic plan is working for families, with lower unemployment, strong job creation, and opportunities for all New Zealanders.

Paul Foster-Bell: Which sectors are experiencing the most growth?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are seeing continued job growth across a range of sectors. The fastest growing is the construction sector, with 16,100 more jobs compared with this time last year. New Zealand has currently experienced its biggest ever construction boom, and we are beginning to see construction employment growing in regions other than Auckland and Canterbury. For example, Waikato had a further 3,600 people working in the sector. In addition, the other two major contributors to the increase in filled jobs this quarter are accommodation and food services, increasing by 16,200 jobs, and an increase of 12,700 in the professional and support services industry.

Paul Foster-Bell: What will the Government do next to ensure continued growth in the New Zealand economy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are continuing to provide stable, predictable, and fiscally sustainable Government, which helps give business the confidence to invest. The Government has just announced that it will allocate $11 billion in new capital infrastructure over the next four Budgets, including $4 billion in the year’s Budget alone. We are investing hugely in schools, hospitals, housing, roads, and railway, and this investment will extend to the run rate significantly and include new investment in the justice and defence sectors. Solid economic growth is driving more jobs and higher wages, and we have a clear plan for the future.

Beneficiaries—Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Benefits

7. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she concerned that the March quarterly benefit figures show that only 42.3 percent of those who cancelled a benefit did so because they had obtained work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): No.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can she stand by her statement that “One of the best levers to help people into employment is making sure they get qualifications.”, when there have been 38 percent fewer beneficiaries leaving the benefit to go into full-time study over the last 3 years—11,727 in March 2014, down to 7,250 in March 2017?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a variety of reasons for that, not the least being that this Government has a fine record in lifting educational achievements for young people at school and keeping young people in school for longer. So many more of our young people have qualifications and are going into work consequently.

Carmel Sepuloni: When celebrating a drop in benefit numbers recorded in the March quarterly benefit figures, was she aware that part of that reduction was due to a 42 percent increase since March 2014 in the number of people leaving a benefit because they were going to prison?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have said many times in this House that the member has been trying to castigate the Government for people who are leaving the benefit, and I have said on a number of occasions that there are a variety of reasons why people do not seek a benefit any longer, and going to prison—I note that in the quarterly figures released we have a number of 6.8 percent who have either moved overseas or are in prison. [Interruption]

Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You need a little more cooperation from your own caucus colleagues.

Carmel Sepuloni: After 8 years, is the Government just relying on more and more beneficiaries going to jail each year to achieve its Better Public Services target of reducing long-term welfare dependency?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: When you look at those March 2017 quarterly figures, I think we should all be celebrating the fact that 50 percent of the people who were on jobseeker benefits are now in work and 2.2 percent of the people who were on all the main benefits are in prison.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Government’s new $1 billion prison part of its emergency housing plan, given that an increasing number of people are moving off benefit and going into prison?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said, I think we should be celebrating the 50 percent of job seekers who have left in the March quarter to go and find themselves work and better lives, rather than making stupid comments about the 2.2 percent of people who end up in prison.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can the Minister celebrate the achievement of the Government’s Better Public Services target to reduce long-term welfare dependency and the Government’s social investment approach, when under its watch the Ministry of Social Development now sees fewer people taking up training and study and more people going off benefit and into prison?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I challenge the member’s figures, because if you look at those quarterly results—

Kelvin Davis: They’re your figures.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, they are. We publish them exactly for this very reason—so that you can have a look at the chart. Full-time students make up 13.7 percent of the people who have left the benefit—going into education—as against the figure that that member seems to be totally focused on, of people going to prison, which is 2.2 percent. In anyone’s language, there is a larger number going into education.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Advice and Re-entry and Recovery Operation

8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements on Pike River mine; if so, how?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes; in the context in which the statements were made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he was seeking clarification on 1 May from officials regarding the disclosure of evidence and whether it may contradict Solid Energy’s position, did he have that information on 2 May when he said: “Manned re-entry is not possible.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The very comprehensive assessment that was done by Solid Energy identified hundreds of risks and showed that manned re-entry deep into the drift was not safely achievable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 May he said he was seeking advice from officials that may contradict Solid Energy. Now he just said then he is relying upon Solid Energy. My question was based on his very quotes—not Solid Energy’s evidence, but the alternative officials’ evidence that he was seeking on 1 May.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way forward is, on this occasion, I will invite the member to repeat the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It is my pleasure. [Interruption]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Don’t worry—the feeling is mutual. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: When he was seeking clarification on 1 May from officials regarding the disclosure of evidence and whether it may contradict Solid Energy’s position, did he have that information on 2 May when he said: “Manned re-entry is not possible.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was interviewed on Monday morning. I said at that time that I did not have sufficient advice in respect of the specifics of the video. I met later that day with Solid Energy and with advisers from Police and the Department of Conservation. On the Tuesday when I was asked, I stated that there was nothing in the video that changed the assessment that was done by Solid Energy that manned entry of the Pike River mine could not be done safely.

Stuart Smith: Has the Minister received any new information on the robot video footage?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Usually the person asking the primary question gets more than one supplementary question before it goes to the other side.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is right; what did confuse me is that I gave him, effectively, a repeat of the first question—so the member is right. However, I have now given the call to Stuart Smith. That is the way it will remain.

Stuart Smith: Has the Minister received any new information on the robot video footage?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have received advice from Police today that police specifically showed families at meetings in Greymouth and Christchurch in July 2011 the footage broadcast on Newshub of the workers with the robot at the portal, as part of about 8 hours of video shown to the families at those meetings. About 100 family members were invited to those meetings, and about 25 attended. There are also paper records of the families being advised in 2011 of the robot emitting smoke in the drift of the mine at the time. This confirms that the video was neither secret nor deliberately withheld from the families.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he values expert advice, why has he ignored thorough assessments by (1) New Zealand Mines Rescue; (2) Queensland Mines Rescue Service; and (3) Tony Forster, former Chief Mines Inspector—all of whom conclude that residual risk can be controlled for a manned re-entry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that is not the advice, for instance, of the New Zealand Mines Rescue Trust. I draw to the member’s attention specifically the statement that it made to the select committee and the further statement it made on Tuesday this week.

Stuart Smith: Why are the claims that the video footage shows it is quite safe to re-enter deep into the drift of the mine incorrect?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The video shows the robot in March 2011 emitting smoke, and some have claimed this shows that there is no risk of an explosion in the mine. This overlooks the fact that the mine at that time was being pumped full of nitrogen, an inert gas. This is very different today where the mine, all bar the very first 30 metres, is near 100 percent methane. The second claim made is that the video shows men working quite safely in the drift of the mine with the robot. Initially it was claimed that they were deep in the drift, but the Mines Rescue Trust, which did the work, has clarified that they were only a few metres in. There is nothing new in men being in the first section of the drift, and this has occurred multiple times with the construction of the temporary seal in 2011, and more permanently in 2016. There is nothing in this information that changes the fundamental assessment done by Solid Energy that manned re-entry deep into the mine is not safely possible.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, why did Pike River management instruct drilling contractors not to drill where the drilling entry into the mine would be directly in the presence of a driftrunner?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy to follow up on where that drilling occurred at the time. I would note that there was close consultation with the families in the decisions that were made back in 2011, when there were robots and other devices put into the drift of the mine. I can also assure the member that the Government and Solid Energy are working very closely with the families in implementing the decision by Prime Minister English for unmanned entry to occur and for it to occur where the families would wish, providing it can be done feasibly and safely.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he not tell us that the Mines Rescue Trust is funded largely by Solid Energy, and if a manned re-entry into the mine is a health and safety issue—as he keeps saying—why then, well after the second blast, was it deemed safe for workers to go 400 metres into the mine’s drift, as shown in this photographic evidence I am holding?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I really do question the member challenging the integrity of the New Zealand Mines Rescue Trust, which, in my view, is very well respected, and I would say that this Parliament should take its advice on issues of safety very seriously. In respect of the fact that men have been down the drift, that was publicly, repeatedly reported, both when the seal was constructed at 170 metres and when the seal was constructed at 30 metres. Of course, in that early section of the drift, it has been absolutely open that there have been men doing work, but it is a very different thing to have men over a kilometre into the drift of the mine.

Hon Paula Bennett: Could he please confirm whether or not the footage will go on a website today under a password for the families who have requested to be able to look at it, and that it will be publicly available tomorrow, so the member can scroll through 30 hours of footage, if he wishes to, and take as many of the pictures as he likes, so he can then apologise to police—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to sit here and take that blatant, fallacious, and lying attack. [Interruption] You have got it all wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The first part of the question asked by the Hon Paula Bennett is in order, which is, effectively: can you confirm that that footage will be put on a website and be available?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been advised by the police that the full video record will be available from that fourth robot as of today, including that they will actually be showing the portion that was shown to the families. The police have, appropriately, decided that the families should get access to that material firstly, and are providing a password. They are also saying that the full video record will be available more generally to the public tomorrow.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why would the Minister and his Government allow the removal of the wreck from the Astrolabe Reef but are now preventing the possible removal of miners’ bodies from the drift of the Pike River mine—both achievable and requiring calculated risk management?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am actually very familiar with the issues of both the Rena and Pike River, and the member may be interested to note that in both situations there was expert evidence, and particularly with the depth of material, parts of the Rena remains are not to be recovered because there was concern about safety—they were so deep. Equally so, there is expert advice that very clearly shows that safe re-entry deep into the Pike River mine is unsafe.

Dairy Farming—Environmental Concerns and Government Response

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his statement, “There’s no way that we can double the number of cows in New Zealand”?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yes, in the context it was given.

Eugenie Sage: What does the Minister believe is an appropriate number of cows for the national dairy herd?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, I am a farmer, and a dairy farmer at that, but I do not think it is in the interests of the House for me to determine whether the number of dairy cows should be 6 million, 6.5 million—and let us not forget that in springtime cows have calves, so the overall herd size increases.

Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that “dairy farming is the land use that has continued to expand rapidly, and so is largely the cause of increased nutrient stress on waterways.”; if so, why is his Government not finding ways to limit new dairy conversions or bigger, more polluting herds?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I have seen that report. In fact, in the last couple of months I have seen many reports highlighting water quality issues that we all face in New Zealand. A lot of these reports summarise the fact that we have got urbanisation, we have got industrial growth, and we have got agriculture growth. It is pointless playing the blame game; every sector needs to improve, and the dairy industry is doing that.

Eugenie Sage: Given that dairy farming is responsible for the increased nutrient stress, what provisions in his Government’s Clean Water package will stop dairy cow numbers increasing if milk solid payouts increase?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Regional councils determine land use change in New Zealand. Often when there is a consent, they put conditions on that particular consent. It is not up to the Government to determine the number of dairy cows in New Zealand, because it actually has to be decided catchment by catchment. The best information at hand comes from the regional councils—the member should know that.

Eugenie Sage: Does he believe that regional councils should limit dairy cow numbers in some catchments?

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member listened to an answer that the Minister for the Environment gave earlier this week, he talked about restrictions on—I think it was—18 catchments, so they are already doing that.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to ask the Minister about a serious biosecurity incursion that has just been announced by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not a legitimate point of order. There is a process for an urgent question. The member should refer to the Standing Orders.

Corrections, Department—Secure Online Learning for Prisoners Project

10. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcement has she made regarding online learning for prisoners?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister of Corrections): The Department of Corrections has completed a programme to equip all prisons with secure online learning suites that allow prisoners access to online learning tools. The suites give prison-based learners access to secure computer suites and online tools that allow them to engage in education, life skills, employment, and reintegration-focused training. The secure online learning pilot was introduced in August 2015 and has been progressively implemented across the Corrections estate. The project has proven successful, with around 1,200 learners using the suites last year alone. Our aim is to have 1,600 learners by June this year.

Todd Barclay: How will secure online learning assist with the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Secure online learning gives prisoners greater access to valuable education resources such as literacy, numeracy, and digital skills, as well as NCEA, trades qualifications, Te Reo Māori, driver’s licence theory, and careers guidance. These education options improve offenders’ rehabilitation by targeting some of the underlying reasons for their offending. They also assist with reintegration by giving prisoners valuable qualifications and improving their job prospects, thereby reducing their likelihood of reoffending. Online learning appeals to many people who have had difficulties engaging in traditional educational methods, and is especially appealing to the younger prison population.

Todd Barclay: What updates can she provide on other Government investments in educational programmes for offenders?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Education is critical to prisoners’ rehabilitation and reintegration, and in motivating them to make a positive change in their lives. However, nearly 65 percent of prisoners are below NCEA level 1 literacy and numeracy, meaning that they often cannot cope with the demands of everyday life and work. We have an ambitious programme to turn this around, with initiatives like the Yard Project in Christchurch—a partnership between Corrections and Housing New Zealand—which has seen offenders refurbish 50 social houses, and has provided them with qualifications and skills for employment, as well as contributing to the rebuilding of Canterbury. Offenders spent more the 90,000 hours last year learning work and living skills as part of community work sentences. And a pilot programme in the South Island helped 450 young offenders to gain a full driver’s licence. In the 2015-16 year over 4,600 offenders achieved qualifications.

Youth Unemployment—Social Investment Approach

11. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by the Government’s “social investment” approach when the number of 15- to 19-year-old youth not in employment, education, or training increased in the last quarter by over 3,000 young people to be at its highest level since 2011?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Yes. The social investment is about tackling some of our most challenging social issues—intervening early to help the most at-risk New Zealanders to lead better lives, become more independent, and cost taxpayers less in the long run. While the member has found one of the few age groups that did not progress in the latest statistics, I would point out to the member that when looking at the rate of young people in the 15 to 24 age bracket not in employment, education, or training in yesterday’s survey, the number actually fell. That means we have 4,000 more young people participating in the economy or building their skills.

Darroch Ball: Bearing in mind Steven Joyce’s earlier answer, does he agree with the Prime Minister’s answer, when asked why increasing numbers of young Kiwis are unemployed, not in education, or training—up 19 percent under National—that “It’s a bit of a puzzle.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I tend to agree with the Prime Minister. But I think you will find that there are a number of issues for why people are not in employment. The best thing that any Government can do is create the environment for a strong, vibrant economy that is producing jobs. That is what we saw yesterday in the paper, where we saw that 137,000 jobs were created in this economy last year. That is great news for the young people of New Zealand.

Darroch Ball: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the “challenge is just finding them.”, admitting that over the last 8 years the National Government has invested in young people it could not even find?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think what the Prime Minister was referring to is that a number of people that we classify as “neets”—young people not in education, employment, or training—are just taking some time off. They are young people who are going about spending time looking after family members or having some fun. Like I say, the most important thing that we can do is make sure that there is a strong economy so that when they are ready to join the workforce, they can.

Mental Health Services—Access and Funding

12. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: How many more New Zealanders are accessing mental health and addiction services now than in 2007/08, expressed as a percentage increase; and what is the corresponding percentage growth in funding for mental health and addiction services over the same time period?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): People now access mental health services via a wide range of channels, from online advice and self-help support, to telehealth services, to visiting their GPs or NGO services, through to accessing secondary care services. Therefore, it is not possible to specifically quantify the total numbers or percentage increase in the way that the member asks for. However, I am able to assure him that funding for mental health has grown faster than population growth and inflation under this Government. At the same time, more New Zealanders are accessing more services faster than under the previous Government.

Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that his quality initiative announcement today amounts to a review that is not called a review, that district health boards are being asked to fund themselves with a review of the review in 3 years’ time?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am glad the member draws attention to the speech that I gave today. The quality initiative that we have announced is all about making sure that we continue to improve and increase the quality of mental health services. It is about less use of seclusion. It is about consistent use of prescribing around the country. It is about adequate response to adverse events and continuing to increase service access for all New Zealanders.

Dr David Clark: Why did he not have funding for mental health services approved for Budget through the regular Budget process that started last year, when there were widespread stories of psychiatric unit bed closures, thousands of Kiwi kids waiting more than 8 weeks for treatment, and the highest number of suicides recorded since 2007-08?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That member would have no idea of the discussions that Cabinet has had on the subject.

Dr David Clark: In light of his speech today that he would be seeking funding for mental health and addiction services and initiatives over the final weeks before Budget day, why did he not do this earlier?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, look, I know the member is a fool of a defrocked priest, but he has no idea what I have done earlier. [Interruption]

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. (1) He has got his religion wrong; (2) Dr Clark is not a defrocked priest; and (3) he is wrong to respond in that manner at question time. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Minister to stand and withdraw that comment.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I expect far better behaviour, particularly from a senior whip.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about seeking funding in the final weeks before Budget day. Is the Minister saying that that is not how the process has happened—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Order! The member will resume his seat. Because of the answer that was given and because it is now some time since we had the question, I am going to invite the member to ask the question again.

Dr David Clark: In light of his speech today that he would be seeking funding for mental health and addiction services and initiatives over the final weeks before Budget day, why did he not do this earlier?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not think the member should misquote my speech, and the other point is he does not know what I have done earlier and what discussions the Cabinet has had. The other point I would raise is Dr Clark’s quote in Critic just last week where he says “decent high quality healthcare should be above party politics”. I mean, I am surprised Dr Clark would say one thing to Critic and another to the House. And, as I have said, I know he is a fool, but this really is remarkable.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! We are not going there.

Dr David Clark: So does he now deny that his announcement a few weeks out from the Budget that he will take a paper to Cabinet “shortly” amounts to the political equivalent of “The dog ate my homework.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said, I know that the member is a fool but, no, I do not agree with him. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Labour caucus has used all of its supplementary questions. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Coleman.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Dr Coleman.

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Coleman. [Interruption] The Hon Dr Coleman—but it gives you no more right to interject across the House when I am on my feet.

Urgent Questions

Urgent Question to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: I have received during question time an urgent question in relation to a potential security outbreak. The guidance I use is whether this matter needs to be answered today, and in view of the fact that it is on biosecurity the next opportunity the House would have to have a question asked would, of course, be next week, which in light of our biosecurity position I do not think is satisfactory. The first question was submitted, as I understand it, right on the start of question time by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. But the information I have had is that the member did not at the time supply a copy to the Minister, the Hon Nathan Guy. If that is the case, then I have to rule the question out of order because Standing Order 388(1) has not been complied with. I will hear from the member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): When the House was convening today I looked around for Mr Guy—I have got other copies here—to give him one.

Hon Nathan Guy: I’m here.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, but you were not here then—that is my point.

Mr SPEAKER: A nice try, but not good enough on this occasion. I have noticed that the Minister has been here throughout most of question time, and certainly was here for a question. So the Standing Orders have not been complied with and that is quite clear to me. Subsequently, and subsequently later, an urgent question was submitted by the Hon Damien O’Connor, and I have been informed that at the same time a copy of that question was given to the Hon Nathan Guy, so the urgent question is allowed. The question from the Hon Damien O’Connor is in order and will be asked.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have certainly heard what you have said. There is a point, though, in relation to Mr O’Connor’s urgent question. I think it is in relation to the lateness of it. If you look at Speaker’s ruling 203/3, what is very clear there is that—and you can go on to further rulings there—“members should try to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for the question to be in the Speaker’s and the Minister’s hands”. Of course, what the Rt Hon Winston Peters did was he did it within a reasonable time—I think, at 2 o’clock, or just before—but he failed because he did not deliver it to the Minister. But in terms of these rulings, what we have here is that I was watching when Mr O’Connor went forward some 10 minutes ago. I argue that it is not within the Speakers’ rulings.

I would also make the point, in terms of Speakers’ rulings 204/5-6, that what is very clear about urgent questions is that they are for something that is about to happen that needs urgent action. Here I accept the point Mr Speaker makes, which is that biosecurity is incredibly important. But what is also true is now there is Government action in relation to it and it could be forensically examined by members opposite, should they wish to, next week, and I would make that point in relation to this as well.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I just wanted to defend you. You have accepted the question, and at that point any approach from the Government to have you reverse it is disagreeing with a ruling that you have made, and is most inappropriate.

Mr SPEAKER: If I could add one more point to the comments made by Mr Mallard, for the benefit of the Hon Simon Bridges, it is my role to judge whether the urgent question should be asked, and, taking that into account, I have looked at the question, the tone of the question, and I have also taken into account the public interest in this matter—and I think the public will be very interested in the situation that is developing in Northland, they will be interested in the question, and I hope they are equally interested in a very satisfactory answer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the urgency of the matter I seek leave to ask my question of the Minister responsible, and for him to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I am going to put the leave. Leave is sought by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask his question. It would then have to be instead of the question from the Hon Damien—

Hon Members: Why?

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s not what he sought leave for, though.

Hon Member: It’s a different question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I think that is a fair call. So we could have—[Interruption] Order! I am going to put the leave. Leave has been sought by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask his urgent question. Is there any objection to that being asked? There is.

Northland—Myrtle Rust Incursion

1. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What action has the Minister initiated to alert the public to the serious threats from the biosecurity incursion of myrtle rust identified near Kerikeri?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): This is a very important issue. I am happy to answer the member’s question. What I would say is that Minister Barry and I have just done a joint press release and talked to numerous media about the importance of this issue. The member may also be aware—or he may not have read the Biosecurity 2025 document that I released in July last year, which talks on page 11 about the importance of myrtle rust. It is a very important serious fungal disease, and we have stepped up the response. It was only a matter of time—because it has been in Australia since 2010, and this is an airborne fungal disease—before it would reach New Zealand.

Ron Mark: Scion told you that.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, if the member wants to take a question, he should get on his feet and take one.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, that will not be happening.

Hon NATHAN GUY: So, as a result, we have stepped up the response in Kerikeri, we have worked very constructively with the nursery owner and his staff, who did the right thing. It has been confirmed that we have myrtle rust in that nursery, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has established a movement control on that nursery, and it will be sprayed with fungicide. We are reaching out to the community of Kerikeri—and indeed the local members, because I had the courtesy to ring the local members before the Government went public with this announcement this afternoon. I rang Kelvin Davis and I took the opportunity to ring Winston Peters, who knew I was calling but was out on Lambton Quay getting lunch.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this matter is serious, and I do not think that the Minister being a smart alec and frivolous about the matter should be allowed to behave like that in the House. I know he is an incompetent fool—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The public will judge the quality of the answer.

Ron Mark: Point of order. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We now have an interruption from Ron Mark.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have heard the Minister invite me to ask a question. I seek leave to ask him that specific question. In his answer, he said that if the member wants to ask a question he should, so I seek the leave—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to ask an additional supplementary question to the Minister. Is there any objection? There is objection. The Hon Damien O’Connor—one supplementary question.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister give any indication as to the potential spread of this disease, and given that it is airborne in nature of that infection, what is the likely radius of control that he has put in place?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, I can reassure the member that MPI and the Department of Conservation (DOC) are taking this very, very seriously. As I already alluded to in the answer to the primary question, the nursery owner did the right thing: supplied photographic evidence through to MPI. MPI arrived yesterday very quickly and took samples and then confirmed overnight that indeed it was myrtle rust. It will move out from the epicentre in a very controlled way; right now it is mapping all of the myrtle trees. There are about 130 sites that are already monitored by MPI—high-risk sites in Northland—and they will be revisited. DOC is moving into the conservation estate. We are reaching out to all of the public who have purchased any tree stock from this particular nursery or the other nurseries in Kerikeri to go and investigate those trees that they have planted for any signs of myrtle rust. So we are taking it very, very responsibly. We are doing all we can, but it will be a challenge to eradicate this because it is windborne, and evidence from other countries that have it is that it is very difficult to indeed eradicate it, but, because the nursery owner moved fast and because MPI has moved fast, and with the public support, we will be doing everything possible to see indeed whether we can eradicate it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I have allowed one supplementary question.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have allowed one supplementary question, and that is it.

Steffan Browning: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I felt that the Minister did not answer fully. He has indicated in his media release—[Interruption]; excuse me, this is a particular point of order—that it is airborne and it probably arrived that way from Australia, rather than it being a lapse in biosecurity in respect of a particular nursery.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, this is not a point of order. It is an attempt to have a further supplementary question.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

Third Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill be now read a third time. I am delighted to do so on International Firefighters’ Day, because the firefighters in New Zealand are our most respected and trusted profession, and today is a day to celebrate not just the passage of new legislation restructuring and unifying our fire and emergency service but also to recognise the contribution that generations of firefighters—paid, urban, rural, volunteer—have made over the years to delivering a quality service to all New Zealanders; to acknowledge the support of their families, who have often put up with their absences; and to acknowledge the work of everyone who has been part of making the Fire Service our pre-eminent emergency service.

This bill brings together our fire services as a unified national service for the first time. Fire and Emergency New Zealand will combine rural and urban, paid and volunteer together to form a new, effective national fire and emergency service fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is the culmination of a series of reviews and reforms over the last 70 years since the Ballantynes fire in Christchurch. It is ironic, perhaps, that until today the one outstanding recommendation from the 1948 royal commission into the Ballantynes fire was the establishment of a national fire service. Never let it be said that we move hurriedly, but today we are giving effect to that outstanding recommendation, and I am absolutely delighted to have driven through this reform.

There has been huge community engagement throughout this process, and the passion and the commitment and the desire for change that we have seen up and down the country, at every meeting that I have had with firefighters and community groups over the last 2 years, has really made possible the scope of today’s change. I want to acknowledge that support. I want to acknowledge the presence of firefighters with us today to celebrate this occasion, and I want to acknowledge their support and encouragement as we have gone through.

It was no coincidence, perhaps—or, in many senses it was, I assure you—that on the night we had the second reading of the bill in February the Port Hills fires broke out in Christchurch, shortly following the Hawke’s Bay fires. What those two events did was put a real spotlight on the camaraderie of firefighters, the lengths that they will go to to serve their communities, and the dangers that they are prepared to face. It also drew attention to why this reform was needed in terms of better coordination, a better delivery of service, and a positive step forward.

It would be remiss of me on this occasion not to acknowledge the sacrifice of Steve Askin, the firefighter—or the helicopter pilot—killed during the Port Hills fires, to acknowledge his contribution and to express, again, our sympathy to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Whatever the nature of the emergency, not just fire but civil or other emergencies, our fire and emergency workers are at the forefront of helping communities. Cyclone, earthquake, flood—any form of natural pestilence, they are there. This legislation puts in place a 21st century solution to their structural issues. It gives them the protections they need, the mandate they need, but equips them in such a way that they can deliver an effective service for the future.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, who chaired the Government Administration Committee that heard the evidence on this bill. I thank her for the efficient and cooperative way in which that committee did its work, and the contribution that she has made as this process has gone through. I want to acknowledge all the parties in this House that have supported this legislation for their encouragement and positivity.

What this bill does is it repeals the Fire Services Act 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, and brings them together in one modern piece of legislation. As I have said, it confirms the mandate and functions of the Fire Service, it gives protection to firefighters in the work that they do, and it deals with an extraordinary irony. The very week that the United Nations released a commendatory report on the work of urban search and rescue services in the Christchurch earthquake, predominantly carried out by the Fire Service, the royal commission of inquiry into that earthquake produced its report and drew attention to the laudatory work of the Fire Service and urban search and rescue, but pointed out that it actually had no mandate to carry that out. That was an extraordinary irony. This bill corrects that and makes sure that, whether it be getting people out of vehicle accidents, extricating people trapped in buildings, dealing with hazardous substance incidences, tarpaulins on roofs, pumping out floods, or responding to earthquakes, the Fire Service—the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand service—will have a mandate to cope with that.

We all know about the work the Fire Service already does in animal rescue, technical and maritime rescue, continuing a lot of ongoing work with other civil defence agencies, and protecting our communities. This is a modern firefighting service for the future. Although it is a national service, it is important to recognise in New Zealand that we have very strong regional differences. That is why we are establishing in this bill a network of local committees to ensure that local interests and local perspectives are focused into the development of policy and operations for the new national service. Pilot programmes to establish those committees are already under way.

New Zealand has around 14,000 fire and emergency workers. Over 80 percent of those are volunteers, and the spirit of volunteerism and the contribution of our volunteers stand right at the centre of this new legislation. Our volunteers are critical to the delivery of our service. They are not paid employees, so they need to be treated differently, and the fire and emergency transition team, and this legislation, bring volunteers together into a new professional relationship with the central entity.

There has been a bit of criticism in recent days, largely from ill-informed sources, about the fire levy. Vested interests and ill-informed sources will always oppose an insurance-based levy system. They claim it is going to be extremely costly for the people who have to bear the 70c-a-week increase in the Fire Service levy; it would be much better to fund this out of general taxation. Of course, if we were to do so, tacking on about half a billion dollars a year on to the direct taxpayers’ budget would cost individual taxpayers far more than the 70 cents a week that they complain about—but then that is the protection of their vested interest.

We have a fairer levy system as a result of this bill. We will ensure, through its provisions, that there is public consultation and a greater sense of transparency, to ensure that the funding that is provided is tied to the strategic needs and business needs of Fire and Emergency New Zealand.

We will also have a better disputes resolution service when disputes occur within the service. The current process is cumbersome, it is archaic, and I think it acts as a disincentive to good problem resolution. This bill sets up new structures in that regard.

As I have said, this bill has been a very long time coming. There have been something like 16 previous attempts to reform the Fire Service. All have failed, for various reasons. Today we stand on the cusp of passing legislation that will ensure Fire and Emergency New Zealand can take its place from 1 July 2017. The principal reason why we have been able to succeed at this time, when other attempts have failed, has been the goodwill and support and encouragement of the men and women of the New Zealand Fire Service up and down the country who recognised there was an opportunity for change, who sought to promote change, and who worked constructively with us to achieve that change. I salute them for the work that they have done.

I want to acknowledge, as I close, a number of people. I want to acknowledge the Hon Paul Swain and the board of the New Zealand Fire Service, which is soon to be the board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, for the huge job they have done during the transition progress. It has been truly, in the right sense of the word, an awesome piece of work by them.

I want to acknowledge our firefighters up and down the country, and my officials in the Department of Internal Affairs, who have worked tirelessly and enthusiastically on this legislation since it was but a concept about 2 years ago. It is a great joy for them to see that work come to fruition today.

I want to acknowledge the communities of New Zealand, which, as a result of the passage of this legislation, will have a better fire service, a better-organised service, and a greater level of confidence that their safety is being protected. With huge pride and a great sense of satisfaction and pleasure, for the final time I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. First of all, can I acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, and just say that where others have failed he has now succeeded. It is a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of the Labour Party in support of this bill. I also want to recognise the Minister, who has brought to the attention of the House that today is International Firefighters’ Day. I also join with the Minister in sending my aroha and condolences to the family of Steve Askin as well.

I think it is also appropriate to acknowledge the officials who assisted the Government Administration Committee with good, concise, and timely advice, which was appreciated. I subbed in on to the Government Administration Committee for this bill, and I want to acknowledge all of the members of the Government Administration Committee as well, for the collegial way in which this bill was dealt with.

As the Minister has pointed out, this particular bill repeals the Fire Service Act 1975, and there are also the two reviews that took place. This system that we have had for decades has largely been unchanged since the 1940s, and today we have the pleasure of passing this piece of legislation. It has been a long process, and this is a very detailed piece of legislation. The committee—and I had the pleasure of being on there, as I said—scrutinised this piece of work. I want to acknowledge the, I think, over 100 submitters and their submissions. I think their submissions have highlighted things that the committee went on to make recommendations on, to make this a better bill. I think there are a number of things that I would like to highlight.

First of all, speaking to the levy system—and we heard many submissions on this—I just want to highlight some of those things that were brought to our attention. I acknowledge what the Minister is saying around the levy system. There is probably never going to be the absolute perfect system that everyone is going to agree with, but I think this one, for its purposes, comes close. So I want to acknowledge that. I think that the issues that a number of the insurance companies and the Insurance Council brought to our attention were listened to—for example, ensuring that not only the insurance companies but also insurance brokers and policyholders, for the avoidance of payment of levies, were brought into this as well, because at first it did not seem that they were. So I think that is just one example where the submitters have made a valid point. It was heard by the select committee, and amendments have been made to this bill. So I want to acknowledge their contribution.

In the same vein, we had a number of submissions from museums, and I think they were often passionate and they were often giving very real situations that they could find themselves in, and I want to acknowledge them also, because I think their contributions made this a better bill.

I cannot help but refer to volunteers. I come from a very small community. We have a volunteer service in our small community, and this bill aims to improve the support for volunteers and bring them into direct relationship with the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). I think it is a very good thing to have the support of the new FENZ organisation, not only for its own sake, but for the sake of the small communities that it serves, or all communities that it serves. Often the volunteer fire service is at the heart of the community. I think that our smaller communities—whether they be urban or rural—deserve to be supported and I fully endorse the support of voluntary firefighters.

There was a lot of discussion around the local advisory committee, and that is another way to ensure that the voice of the entire community is heard. Each community has its own distinct way of operating, and I think it is important that the diverse voices are heard all throughout the services that are provided.

Both the Minister and I have used the word “service” quite often and I do want to make one comment around that, purely because of the number of firefighters and service people who make a huge commitment, not only in their professional lives but in their personal lives as well, in the service of our country. I think it is worthwhile noting that their service is appreciated, and that not only is it appreciated; the word “service” may not now be in the name of the organisation but it is my sincere hope that the whole concept of service continues, and continues to be appreciated by the wider New Zealand public. I am certain that that will happen.

I also want to talk—as I say, I come from a small community—about the heart and core of our economy really, the primary sector. One of the things that was submitted was around using fire as a land management tool. Again, I thank the officials because, whilst there were provisions in the original draft of the bill, I think what has been accepted by the Committee of the whole House makes the use of fire as a land management tool that much more explicitly clear. It also provides that FENZ provides guidance around the safe use of fire as a land management tool. I commend that also.

I want to acknowledge the many people in the gallery today, particularly those who have made a huge contribution to this whole process leading up to today, the third reading of this bill. Without any further delay we need to pass this bill as soon as possible, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Like others in this House, I want to begin by congratulating the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, who has achieved a significant updating of the basic underpinning legislation for the New Zealand Fire Service, soon to become the Fire and Emergency New Zealand organisation. Congratulations, Minister. This is something that has been overdue for some time, and the constructive and consultative way in which you have undertaken this work is something worthy of praise, I believe.

I also want to thank members from across the House. I had the pleasure of sitting on the Government Administration Committee during the consideration of this legislation. With the sole exception of New Zealand First, I think all parties in this House have taken a very constructive view. They listened to the evidence that was put forward from not only our heroic and hard-working firefighters but the community groups, the museums—all the organisations and individuals who came forward to submit on this bill. I think it is very unfortunate that there is one party in this House that is taking the view that this legislation is not necessary, and, in fact, that is a view based, in my opinion, on ignorance rather than on an understanding of what this bill actually does.

This legislation updates the underpinnings of our Fire Service for the 21st century. It is a fact that already more than half of the emergencies attended by the Fire Service are not actually fire in nature. They are the car crashes, they are the accidents. In some cases, the Fire Service is a key component of our civil defence response. So it is quite appropriate that the name of the Fire Service be updated to include reference to that emergency component.

In so far as the way levies are raised, and given that the starting point from this legislation did not see a move away from the use of insurance levies, rather than general taxation, to fund our fire and emergency services, I think we on the committee paid close attention—certainly I paid very close attention—to what those in the museum and gallery sectors were saying. These are organisations where the capital value of the precious taonga that they hold—the paintings, the artworks, and, in the case of the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland, the Lancaster bomber, which is one of maybe only 10 left in the world and of incalculable value—and the insurance they take out on these capital products, these investments, these treasures, is not reflective of the cost perhaps of actually servicing them from a fire protection point of view.

So I am grateful that the Minister listened very carefully to those concerns, and they will be reflected, I think, in a regime for levying those organisations, which is sensible and allows them to pay their dues and to pay their way and to make sure they are contributing their part. But, at the same time, it does not impose crippling costs upon organisations that are crucial for protecting our treasures and our history.

There are many other clauses in this legislation that are positive. I think the way we looked at search and surveillance powers—this is something I certainly took particular interest in. I think that when you are using the coercive powers of the State to pry into people’s private business, there have to be checks and balances. But bringing the search and surveillance powers that may be used, for instance, for fire investigation into line with the Search and Surveillance Act so that there are warrants and there is the need to produce identification—these are all measures that I think provide appropriate checks and balances.

So I think, all up, this is very good legislation. I want to, once again, pay tribute to the men and women of the Fire Service, who risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe and who do so much more than fighting fires. They do the protective work and the educational work but also are out there freeing people from damaged vehicles and generally serving their community in a selfless way. I also want to pay tribute to the many officials who worked on this legislation, as well as the serving officers of the Fire Service who offered their views during the consultative process. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell. He is the deputy chair of the committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Government Administration Committee, and he does a very fine job. He really genuinely assisted in getting cross-party collaboration on trying to make what we thought was already a good bill even better than it was, and I think our committee achieved that. I want to acknowledge, also, that the Committee of the whole House did good work on this bill.

This is a long overdue piece of legislation and I was delighted, having witnessed several other attempts to achieve amalgamation of the various parts of our Fire Service, to have the opportunity to chair the committee that looked at it. We had over 100 submissions on the bill, many of which were from people who had a lot of experience in the firefighting business, either as professionals or as volunteers. I think they made one of the most valuable contributions that I have heard. So I want to acknowledge them.

The levy system, which the Minister of Internal Affairs acknowledged was one of the most contentious issues, and I will mention it later on—I do not think we have got it right. I would not be as dismissive of the people who are concerned about it as the Minister was, but I certainly hope that their fears are not realised. I certainly hope that they are wrong in the description of the concerns they have, because they think they are genuine. They raised them with the committee, and we were unable to progress that.

Paul Foster-Bell mentioned museums, and we had good assurance from the officials that the concerns they raised would not be realised. It was one of the frustrations that the committee had, in that a lot of the detail is going to be in regulations, but we made our views very clear. We have got on the record the assurances we received at various points of the deliberations, so that we can say: “No, no, you told us this, and now you’re going to deliver it.” So I will just remind the people who are responsible for that that we have got it on the record and we will be keeping a close eye on it. But I do have confidence that they will deliver in the way that they said.

The Committee of the whole House accepted the recommendations from our committee and made what I think were good amendments. The local committees are now called local advisory committees, and we thought that was pretty appropriate because that is going to be their job. They are going to be advising. We excluded the insurance of aircraft that fly scheduled international services. We included some additional anti-avoidance provisions. We got a lot of help from the insurance industry. Despite the fact that it has a fundamental opposition to the levy regime, it still gave us a lot of assistance in working through some of the insurance details, which is not the expertise of any of the members of the committee. I just want to put on the record that we appreciate that, and the consideration of the use of fires as a land management tool, which was something that I guess, for a lot of the city slickers who were advising the committee, was not a familiar use. But, again, we came to a really sensible decision, based on the contributions that we had from submitters.

This is a really big and significant change, and it is coming into effect on 1 July. I just want to say that I am frustrated that it has been delayed so long. We made the offer. We worked hard at the committee, we got the bill back before it was due, we made the offer to work in our overtime hours to perhaps get this bill progressed, but I think—probably I would not say it was the obstinacy; I would probably say it was the incompetence of the former Leader of the House, as to why that offer was not taken up. So it is now May, and this bill is coming into effect on 1 July. I can give the Minister the assurance that it was despite our efforts, which is not the usual case in Opposition, actually, that this bill has been delayed.

I want to say that we as a Parliament have made a big and difficult job more difficult because of the time pressures that we have now put on the people implementing it. That was not the intention of our committee, it was not the intention of Labour, and if you want more details on who to blame, I am happy to provide them at a suitable opportunity.

Labour wants this bill to be delivered. We support it, and we want it to be delivered well. We want our firefighters to go into the new regime knowing their place. We want them to know their chain of command, and also to know that they are valued and valuable. They need to feel this is their organisation, wherever they come from in their current life, whatever part of the Fire Service they come from. We want New Zealand citizens to continue to hold our firefighters on the pedestal of respect that they currently do.

It is quite funny, when you look at the regular surveys of what professions are highly regarded. It struck me a number of times how ironic it was that we as politicians, who are usually on the other end of the scale, were determining the structure for the profession that is held in the highest regard, but I hope we got it right.

It is a grand and fortuitous situation, hopefully, that we are passing this bill on International Firefighters’ Day, and I guess that is a real tribute for Parliament to give firefighters. So I certainly hope it will go through by 6 o’clock. Minister Dunne, you do not have to get anxious about that, because we cannot extend it past the time we have got.

I want to finish with some acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge firefighters throughout the country, particularly those who have worked tirelessly recently in my electorate on the Port Hills fires. I want to especially acknowledge Steve Askin, who died fighting those fires, but also all the firefighters who worked so hard to keep people and property safe, often, I guess, in more dangerous circumstances than we have seen in New Zealand before—very similar to what has been seen in Australia, but pretty horrific for us. I certainly do not want to have a repeat of that anywhere in the country.

I want to acknowledge the Minister. It is about the 16th or 17th time an attempt has been made. He got the stars lined up, he got the right people on the job, and it has worked—so I congratulate him on doing that. I want to acknowledge all of the select committee members who worked so hard to get this right, the submitters who contributed so well to our thinking, our select committee staff, and, particularly, our officials. I think by the end of the process they were actually enjoying coming to our select committee—it may just be that they were extremely good at putting on a brave face. But, under a lot of time pressure and a lot of pretty hard scrutiny from the select committee members, they did the Public Service proud. We had a very wide range of advisers, and every single one of them did a top-quality job. I hope that their bosses are listening and that it is reflected in their next wage negotiations, because they deserve it.

This is a huge step, but for me it is still a job not finished. That is not a criticism of the Minister; I think we can just go further, after what has been a very big and important step forward. I think we can develop a fairer levy system, and we should try to do that on a cross-party basis. We have only got 11 sitting weeks left, Minister Dunne. You are pretty good at using your time well. I challenge you to get that discussion started across all parties here. Let us see who of us is left, after 23 September, and let us pick it up as a discussion that needs to be had.

I do think that we need a more common-sense approach to traffic management. If we can trust firefighters to save our lives—and we do—I think we can trust them to test fire hydrants without needing a traffic management plan, and I hope we can do that. We need an independent complaints process. Submitters raised that, and I think that in the same way as the Police do, we should look at that. And we should put “Service” into the name of the new organisation. I do not know why, really, it is not in there, but we all know that what firefighters do, whether they are in rural and forest or are professional or volunteers. They are there because of their commitment to service, and even if the word is not there, none of us will ever forget that.

This is a good and positive step forward, and I am delighted to see its progress this evening.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour and a privilege to rise in wholehearted support of the third reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. Now, you will have to indulge me; this is the first time I have spoken on this bill. In fact, I am a new member of the Government Administration Committee. I am a new MP; I am here to learn from the best, so clearly that is why they have put me in that select committee.

Can I just acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for all the work she has done on this in leading the committee; in fact, can I acknowledge all the committee members as well. One of the important parts of the legislative process is to take a bill through the public submission stage, consult the public, and, based on its feedback, kick this bill around and bring it back in a good shape. I think that is exactly what the committee has done. There were around 105 submissions, and I think we bring a very good bill back here in its third reading.

I just want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne—very passionate, very dedicated and committed to this bill. I think that came out in his call today, so I just want to acknowledge all his work. It is the biggest reform since the 1940s. We are following up from the Swain recommendations. It will be replacing outdated legislation from the 1970s and, pretty much, future-proofing and modernising the service going forward in the 21st century.

Like others, I do want to acknowledge Steve Askin, who lost his life fighting the fires in the Port Hills. Steve was from Waimakariri. But I also want to acknowledge our firefighters—firemen and women, volunteer and career firefighters—who give up so much time, have so much commitment, and have the ultimate professionalism.

A good example of that is I recently attended a Gold Star presentation for Rodney Foster, a fireman from the Kaiapoi Volunteer Fire Brigade in my electorate. Rodney has committed over 33 years of service to the volunteer fire brigades of not only Kaiapoi and Waimakariri but several fire brigades up and down the country. I think it is right that we are supporting our very hard-working firemen and women with this legislation going forward.

One of the biggest tasks, when you look to gather all this together in an integrated system, is how you deal with the natural tensions. We see this playing out between the tensions of urban and rural, of big and small towns, and of volunteer and career firefighters. I think this legislation lands in the right place of dealing with those natural tensions by bringing everyone together in an integrated system that will ultimately provide a better response for the safety of New Zealanders, our local communities, and our families. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on this, the third reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I too, on behalf of the Green Party, want to offer congratulations and acknowledgment to the Minister on getting us to this point. It has been said by others, but I think it is worth each of us repeating, that this is a very significant piece of legislation. It is legislation that supports the people who are protecting us and our property, and those who at times lose their lives in that process, and so there is not much more important business. This is reform that has been tried before and has not been able to be done, so I really do want to acknowledge what it has taken to get us to this point.

This is the most significant reform since the 1940s. While it is an updating of the Fire Service Act of 1975 and the Forest and Rural Fires Act of 1977, in some ways those separate pieces of legislation represented a point in progress that had not moved us very far from what we knew we needed at an even much earlier time, and we have got to it now at a much more significant point. We acknowledge that this is the result of a huge amount of very significant thinking—there were reviews in 2012 and 2015—that considered what was needed in this reform, and then we had 104 submissions, 47 of which were oral submissions, through the select committee process.

Those submissions, as others have mentioned, came from a very wide range of people, from people who would be levied and insurance companies that are involved in that process, to those who are on the front lines. I too want to give my thanks to, particularly, those on the front line who shared their experiences and challenged us to think about some of the practicalities involved in this degree of reform.

I do want to note that one of the things I am most encouraged by in this legislation is actually a very, very small point in it, but it is the implementation of a 3-year review of the legislation. We have known we needed significant reform since the 1940s and it has taken us until 2017, and when it comes to this kind of civil defence, we know that we have got increasing demand on these services. This is a massive reform that we are undertaking at the moment and we know that we are not going to have it right in its entirety. I think there is trust from most in Parliament that we are moving forward and in the right direction but that we are not going to have got all the details right, so that 3-year review is critically important. It points us towards ensuring that the systems in the meantime are reflecting on what is working and what is not, so that we can be in a mode of constant improvement, and I hope that is the will of everyone. It was certainly the mood in the Government Administration Committee.

I do want to acknowledge that since this bill was introduced we have had the Kaikōura earthquakes, the Wellington earthquakes; we have had the flooding in Wellington and Kāpiti and Porirua; and we have had the fires in Christchurch—on the night of the second reading, which made this so poignant—and in Hanmer, and the floods in Coromandel, and those were just within the time of the consideration of this bill. To me, it just brings home how critically important this legislation is, because we are seeing more and more need for emergency services in responses to floods, quakes, and cyclones, and this is going to be increasing as the already-locked-in impacts of climate change escalate.

I do want to speak to some of the points of content of the bill while noting that, obviously, we are supporting this bill. We understand and acknowledge that there are 14,000 people whom this bill is covering, 80 percent of whom are volunteers. I particularly want to acknowledge that this is a bringing together of two cultures, from the urban force and the rural forces, and that volunteers are primarily in the rural areas. Volunteers are a heart of our rural communities, and it would not work—well, in some people’s heads, I guess, in the city we assume many positions should be paid and we expect that, and that is appropriate in an urban setting, but within a rural setting the context is different, and I think it really is quite an exceptional undertaking to try to bring these two very distinct cultures into one organisation.

I do think it will make the local advisory committees critically important, and it will also make important the fact that the legislation enables an independent advocacy and support service to be set up—because there is likely to be a time when the needs of the paid force and the volunteers could come into conflict, and when the trust in the institution of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), which would more likely be representing paid interests, may be seen to have a conflict. So to have that agency or support or service set up in consultation with the volunteers so that there would be that avenue for independence is, I think, a very wise provision in this bill. We certainly heard that sometimes those relationships have not been easy, and we want to make sure that the legislation supports a positive pathway forward of recognising those different interests at times, and protecting people in that process.

Also, I would like to again reiterate our hope and understanding and assurances that are on record around the levy process. I do hope that we will see a very simple and transparent system set up via regulation. My preference is always for us to have worked these things out before the legislation passes and for it to be part of that public consultation within the legislation. I am not a fan of this thing—which we seem to be having quite commonly through Parliament—of having the enabling legislation with detail that is so absolutely significant being done outside the parliamentary process. However, it is good to have the assurances, and we will certainly be keen to be involved in any discussions about the establishment of that levy system.

I do hope that there will be a levy waiver system for our public institutions. I would acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell’s contributions in the committee, particularly around protection of our art galleries and museums, which are dear to all of us, and I did hear a particular interest from that member in the process of doing that.

Another aspect in terms of the bill that we will certainly be looking for feedback on is acknowledging that the title has “services” taken out, and that that is a point where some people feel as if their reason for being engaged in this work has been made invisible. I do think that that is a shame. The acronym “FENZ”, to me, is not so pretty that it could not have been “FESNZ”. I do not know—I think we could have come up with something a bit better.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Public policy by acronym.

JAN LOGIE: Yeah. I don’t know—I think we could have come up with something a bit better that did acknowledge the importance of people’s service and the reasons that they are doing this, and made that visible in the title of the bill and the organisation. But that is where we are at at the moment, and there will always be a chance for progress in that 3-yearly review.

In the final moments, I do, again, just want to offer the Green Party’s absolute, heartfelt thanks for all those paid and volunteer firefighters who put their bodies and their mental well-being on the line for us on a daily basis.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make comment on this third reading, and also to speak on behalf of my colleague Clayton Mitchell, who is unable to present here today. I want to start by saying that at the outset of the first reading, my colleague Clayton Mitchell made it clear that New Zealand First members would support the legislation through its first reading in the hope that we would see some reforms that we could live with; that we thought we could have confidence in; that would make the Fire Service truly more efficient across the board and, hopefully, less costly; and that any reforms would not unduly and unfairly hit people with levies while at the same time allowing others to sit on the sidelines and contribute nothing.

I have to say also, right from the outset, that I am one of those gentlemen—I am a father-in-law of a man whom I am very, very proud of, by the name of Scott Shadbolt, who is the highest-decorated firefighter in New Zealand. He is a recipient of the Valour Medal, was the first to receive it in 106 years, and is one of only three people to have been awarded it. Through him and other members of my family who are professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters, I am fortunate to have a pretty good understanding of some of the issues within the fire service, and so too does Clayton Mitchell.

I am also privileged, as a former mayor, to have some very good friends in the Carterton volunteer fire service, who did our district and our people proud during the awful balloon tragedy that happened in the rohe of Hurunui-ō-Rangi, which resulted in the deaths of 11 people. I can say to this House that I see those firefighters on a day-to-day basis, and I can assure you that those firefighters still have some pretty vivid and horrific memories burned into their brains as a result of the unfortunate work that they were required to do in the service of our community. I am immensely proud of them, and will always be so grateful to them.

New Zealand First is not blind, and has never been blind, to some of the issues that have plagued our Fire Service internally. We all know well the difference between professional firefighters and volunteer firefighters, just like in army, where you had the same issue between regular soldiers and territorial force soldiers—some called some “trogs” and other names; that is just the way the culture had evolved over the years. We know that there are clear professional differences. We know that there are some skill set differences between rural firefighters and urban firefighters. We know that there are differentials in competencies The issues around command have long been known, where some commanders have been roundly, scathingly attacked by professional and volunteer firefighters alike. We are not blind to the issues and the challenges, and we supported the first reading in the hope that we might be able to address some of these things and support it.

Come to the second reading, and, again, Clayton Mitchell pointed out his concerns about the levy, with the weight of it falling mainly on commercial building owners and residential people through their insurance. He had already raised, in the first reading, questions around why we could not look at compulsory third-party insurance for motor vehicles and tack the levy in there. We would also solve another problem out there, which is related to vehicle accidents. That, clearly, was not something that the Government Administration Committee or Minister Dunne wanted to accept. I think we raised concerns about the many people who would be paying—business people and residence owners in particular—and the number of people who would remain untouched, outside of the levy regime.

He said that in the committee stage—I am reading from his Hansard—96 percent of the submissions opposed the levy proposals. Not opposing a levy at all, but this levy proposal—the way that it was purported it would work and their belief of how it was actually going to work, at the end of the day. The issue around the Fire Service being made responsible for and required to divert resources of its own, in order to now become a collection agency—the question was raised by Mr Mitchell: is that not what IRD does, and is that not a more appropriate way to do that? I am not sure myself, having not sat on the committee, as to why the committee followed this path and why all the other parties agreed to it. Mr Mitchell and New Zealand First do not.

Uncapped levies are another issue, and there have been concerns raised out there. Mr Dunne might consider these to be interest groups that are focused only on self-interest, but I read a media release and a comment that said: “New Zealanders will have to pay an extra 40 percent in their insurance fire levy from July, despite the assertions that this amalgamation of fire services is about efficiency. This Government’s reform package will result in an immediate cost increase of $80 million for little or no increase in services, despite the claims by the Minister that these reforms will save money.” The prediction from the Taxpayers’ Union is: “Total fire service costs will shoot up $80 million per year despite efficiency being the key promise by Mr Dunne of these reforms. What is worse, the Government has increased the economic burden on New Zealanders without any comparable increase in the level of service.”

We in New Zealand First cannot help but reflect for a little moment on this Government. This Government won those Government benches and 59-odd MPs on a campaign—and I am hoping Labour is listening—that it would reduce compliance costs to business, that it would be business-friendly, and that it was the business people’s best buddy. And yet when we look at this legislation on the backdrop of other Government legislation, what do we see? We see an earthquake-prone-buildings piece of legislation being rammed through the House that is foisting upon business people massive increases in costs for no increased capability in their buildings at all, despite the fact that these buildings are little wooden buildings tucked away in villages around the country, which have withstood every major earthquake thus far, including the last one. There is going to be no gain for them at all—an increase in business costs.

Look at the occupational safety and health legislation that this Government has rammed through, which is being highly criticised out there now. It is foisting upon people massive compliance costs that will give no productivity gain at all, and much of what they are being required to do is just plain common sense anyway. You look at the Government’s refusal to allow New Zealand First to get legislation through that would change the cost of strengthening these buildings from capital works to repairs and maintenance, which would allow owners to get a tax break. This Government prevented that. There are four areas now, with this bill going through—four areas alone—where this Government, purporting itself to be business-friendly, is foisting upon commercial operators, commercial building owners, and even residents who rent properties, massive compliance costs.

There is word for that, and you cannot use it in this House, but it rings in the ears and it simply says that if you truly believed that when people voted this Government in, they were going to get a reduction in compliance costs in the business sector, forget it. There are four big whammies that you have just got. This piece of legislation—well, I can see the nodding and the shaking of the head from Mr Hudson over there, so I will read out a piece by Mac Mckenna.

Dr David Clark: They hate business over there.

RON MARK: They hate business, do they not? Mac Mckenna: “Using the government’s own figures, the total cost of the new entity, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, will shoot up by $80 million each year. The burden of these costs will fall on only those who insure for property.”—not on all those people out there who do not insure. “The changes on July 1 will see a 40% increase in fire levy rates on insurance policies. For residential insurance-holders the fire levy only applies to the first $100,000 of cover, so the increase will be a maximum of $36.20 per annum. However, because the cap does not apply to non-residential property the average levy paid will be substantially [higher].”

New Zealand First would have liked to have supported this bill, but the signals we gave right at the start have been ignored and the Government has gone ahead anyway. Reform is needed and we applaud that thought, but this is not the way to have done it.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill—a most important bill. In my time in public life I have seen three goes at reforming this sector—this very valuable sector—of our community, and I congratulate Minister Dunne on getting there on the third go that I have seen.

I just want to quantify, I guess, the significance of this part of our community to an electorate like mine. I have some 26 volunteer fire brigades, which include over 500 volunteers, and that is just in the Rangitīkei electorate. That is pretty significant. We have three defence force brigades, six council rural fire brigades, and those are supplemented by a couple of full-time Fire Service stations out of Palmerston North. It is a very significant sector of our community. It is a community that, for a long time, has operated in different manners in different parts of New Zealand, and I think this is a very good initiative to try to standardise this around New Zealand. I think it will make quite a difference to the way the service operates. It will particularly make a difference to the way our volunteers operate.

In the early part of this latest reform, as was the case with the previous two that failed to get off the ground, there was a lot of nervousness amongst our volunteers and amongst many in the Fire Service about how this might work. I think it has been largely overcome as the bill has gone through the process in the House, and I think the sector has, by and large, accepted the changes. I think they will be successful.

The Fire Service, our volunteer fire brigades particularly, have seen a massive change in the last 30 or 40 years in the way they operate. Whereas originally they were set up as fire brigades, they have now become the first responders to almost everything that goes on in our community. Some of the things they have to deal with are pretty significant and pretty difficult, and I think that they should be congratulated on the work they do in our communities. I think the Minister should be congratulated on getting this bill to the post. As with any legislative change, there is always some nervousness around how it will play out, there are always some teething problems, but I am sure this will get wide acceptance in our community, and I am sure it will be successful. Thank you.

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

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the third reading of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. Like other speakers in the House, and as my colleague Jan Logie has said before, the Greens will be supporting this bill. We note that it has taken a long time to get to this point, but the process has been fairly thorough. There were consultations and reviews in both 2012 and 2015 that came up with a raft of recommendations, which have mostly been adopted in the legislation that we see being enacted before us today.

Like others have before me, I do want to acknowledge the work that our firefighters, both voluntary and professional, do for New Zealanders and the sacrifices that they make for us. If we think about the work that they actually do, we know that it is not just putting out fires but also attending car crashes, cutting people out of cars on the road, supporting the ambulance services, and also attending to things like road closures, slips, and floods. In my own community on Waiheke Island in April and in March, we had enormous weather events that resulted in the fact that, basically, our voluntary fire service attended something like 26 call outs over an 11-hour period, starting at 11.30 at night. That was on just one of the days that we had those weather events. Most of the work the firefighters were doing was clearing roads, cutting up trees so that people could get through, pumping out people’s basements and roads, and dealing with water damage.

The work that these people do is amazing. I would also like to recognise the fact that they put their lives on the line, and I think particularly of the firefighters who attended the fire several years ago in Tamahere, and also the 60 firefighters who were impacted on by the toxicity of the fire that they fought in 1984 at the ICI chemical factory, some of whom are still dealing with the consequences of that. So these are brave people—there is no doubt about that—and they deserve a service that actually treats them consistently and a service where they can progress through it. I have heard that the union has been fairly supportive of this process, and that is good to see too.

Again, I acknowledge, like my colleague Jan Logie did, that this is the merging of two cultures—the voluntary culture and the professional culture, and the urban culture and the rural firefighting scene—but we are hopeful, and I am sure that the rest of the Fire Service is too, that this will deliver consistency across all of New Zealand and consistency of resources that are available, as well. There is the potential that the kinks that may still remain—particularly in the stuff around levies, which will be contained and nutted out in the regulations—can be ironed out within the 3-year review. I commend the Government for developing legislation that allows for that, because that does mean that things that may not have been foreseen can actually be dealt with.

I also suggest that this is a model that should be watched very, very closely, because we could be looking at it for our other emergency services—in particular, I am thinking about the ambulance service, which has recently had some real issues around staffing. The Fire Service supports it in many of the incidents that it attends, and the ambulance service is a very similar type of organisation in that it is staffed by professionals and volunteers. The ability for people to access ambulances across the country is not consistent because of the availability of volunteers and the lack of a requirement for safe staffing by having two or more ambulance officers attend at one time.

So we will be supporting this bill. We look forward with interest to see how it plays out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Mana Whakawā kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki Te Minita e whakahaere nei i tēnei pire o tātau nō te mea tēnei pire e whakahaere nei i a rātau e haere tuatahi ki te ahi, ki te aituā i runga te huarahi, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki a ia.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill of ours, because it is about those who go for the first time to a fire and an accident on the road. I want to congratulate him.]

The Māori Party is very proud to support this piece of legislation, this bill that will become law. I have a few friends who are in the Fire Service and the fire department, and I have asked them along the way—because I am not part of the Government Administration Committee, I have not been able to hear the debate and the deliberations and the hearings. But I have been actively watching the report, and they have asked: “What does the Māori Party think about this?” So I have gone out to members of our whānau who I know in the Fire Service and I have asked them: “What is the effect on you from this legislation?” What they tell me is: “Well, it’s change, and we need to get used to that, but, actually, we think it is good.” So I have been buoyed by their support. I have been buoyed by the support and the work of the select committee and the report that it has brought back to the House, and the work of the honourable Minister Peter Dunne.

In Carterton, as my cousin, the member Ron Mark, pointed out, the volunteer fire brigade is in operation. If you have ever seen it, what happens is that a siren will go off in the town and people will run out of their shops and take off down the road. When I first saw that I thought: “What the heck is going on?” They were just merely responding as the volunteer fire service does. In a rural area these men and women respond to fires, they respond to accidents on the road, and they also respond, as first responders, to deaths and murders and homicides if they are the first person there. So they need to be prepared for all types of things. When I have spoken to these firemen and firewomen, who take up this duty on our behalf, they tell us that there are some times they need to just step back and take a break from the things that they witness, the things that they have to do, and that it is difficult and hard work.

It is long overdue, the review of the first responders in the fire department in this country. I commend the Minister for the efforts that he has made alongside the select committee to ensure that this is the best piece of legislation possible and that we can unify and combine the efforts of these men and women across the country who respond. I am immensely proud of the work that they do. Across the nation, we all know that when there are deaths on the roads, the people who are cutting them out are our Fire Service. We all know when there is a full-blown house fire—you can see it across a rural valley and in a heartbeat you know that the rising smoke is so black and dense and thick that that is a house on fire.

The tragedies that they have to encounter and deal with are significant. I am very proud of those people—those men and women—who put their lives at risk. In fact, we have a little joke that they put their Superman suits on when they walk into work and go out there and save lives and protect the public. So I am proud of the work that the committee has done, and I am proud of the work that the Minister has done, and I am merely rising as a representative of the Māori Party to commend this bill to the House. Thank you—that is all we have.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill in this, its third reading—a bill that will shortly head off to become law in New Zealand. This work is going to finally address some longstanding issues, I think, around fire and emergency services in New Zealand. For years the Fire Service has dedicated itself to responding not only to fire-based emergencies but to many other incidents that it was not necessarily well funded to address, particularly things such as vehicle accidents, which are very often serious events.

So I am very pleased to have sat on the select committee for the hearing and the scrutiny of this bill. I think what has been returned and what will pass is a very sensible measure—one that is focused on delivering both a more effective and a more efficient fire and emergency response in New Zealand, and one that acknowledges that there were gaps in the previous funding model and has looked to address those. But, equally, it is one that also recognised that there could be some almost perverse distortions brought in if there was not some pragmatism applied to the funding model. I would refer to the gallery and museum sector, such as my colleague Paul Foster-Bell mentioned earlier, and also, as it happens, coverage of things like planes, particularly on international services.

So here we get to a point, I think, where we have a bill that has support across almost all of the House. It is one that will make a real difference to New Zealanders, and a real difference to the men and women who serve in our fire and emergency services. It has been an absolute privilege to play the role I have been able to in this small way, through the passage of this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

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

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I begin by acknowledging the management of the Fire Service, some of whom are here today. I think they are here to make sure that this legislation actually goes go through today after waiting such a long time. So can I acknowledge them, especially on International Firefighters’ Day, as the Minister pointed out. Can I also acknowledge the Minister, Peter Dunne. As many contributors have said, this piece of legislation has been a long time coming. There have been many attempts and it was a heavy piece of work not only legislatively but also in trying to unravel an organisation and put a new organisation together. So can I acknowledge Peter Dunne for the work that he has done there.

Also can I acknowledge all the members of the Government Administration Committee, which I used to be a member of, and also my colleague Adrian Rurawhe who sat on the committee as well, because it was one of the best select committee processes that I think I have sat through. There were plenty of issues to get through and I think we worked around the committee pragmatically to deal with a lot of the issues, which I think a lot of the MPs had a good understanding of because, as local members of Parliament, we do work closely and liaise with our local firefighters. Many of those who have contributed have talked about the likes of levies and, obviously, the organisational change, but this is a good piece of legislation in the fact that it has been a long time since the Act was amended, and this is a good opportunity to deal with some of the practical issues in that firefighter space.

I want to acknowledge some of the firefighters and brigades in my electorate, some of whom are in the House. I acknowledge Carl Mills. I see Tāmati Kaa up there. I acknowledge you all—Gavin as well. I saw Chad O’Hara up there as well.

This is because, as well as answering the call when the sirens go off, this committee had over 110 submissions, a lot of them from brigades themselves, and what I take from that is that not only are they concerned about what they are doing day to day in volunteering but, when the opportunity—a once-in-70-years opportunity—came up to change the legislation, our volunteer firefighters, our rural firefighters, our professional firefighters were engaged in the process to make sure that the legislation was as good as it could be for their communities. I think, hats off to them, because they could have just said: “We’ll just look after our own patch. We’re OK. These issues we can deal with locally.” But they saw a probably once-in-a-generation opportunity to change when the legislation was being changed, and they took that opportunity and made a hell of a lot of submissions—a lot of them that the select committee took seriously.

I do want to acknowledge and ask that consideration be given to one issue, which was a fly in the ointment for one of my volunteer fire brigades at Plimmerton, and ask the management of what will become Fire and Emergency New Zealand—as we did at the Committee stage—about the traffic management plans. I think, as a local representative—and all MPs in this Parliament think—that there would be an understanding in the community that all the fire hydrants in New Zealand are being checked that they are operational on a relatively regular basis. It was my understanding from some of the advocacy that came to me that that might not necessarily be the case, because of some of the traffic management plans and the onus—the uneven onus—on some of the brigades around the country.

As we said, I would like that issue—despite it not being within the legislation—to be continued to be dealt with by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, because I think it is a real issue in the community. It is something that if one day—God forbid—it became an issue when a hydrant did not work and something could have and should have been done, I think it could come back to this House, because we did not deal with it in a legislative way. So my request is—we had an assurance from the Minister that the officials and the management are aware of this issue and that it is going to get dealt with. I would ask that in the plan of work of the new entity, that does happen, to make sure that the community-minded volunteers and brigades out there can go out there and check the hydrants to make sure that they work. I think that is what every New Zealander assumes is happening at the moment, but might not be the case.

Aupito WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Assistant Speaker. During Anzac Day I had the opportunity to share my remarks, like many others would have, with our local community, and I reflected on the legacy of the Anzacs. In doing so, I not only acknowledged the original Anzacs—our servicemen and servicewomen and our police—but I also deliberately acknowledged our fire and emergency services on that particular day. I have to say that our community responded with much support and recognition of the work that our fire people do. I think that is important. I think it is important to put it out there, because what is happening today is a significant milestone in updating the legislation so it recognises, truly, the work that our firemen and firewomen, including our volunteers, are doing.

We have this traditional view that our fire department simply puts out fires or turns up to a non-fire emergency, but the reality is that it is much more than that, and the legislation has not kept up pace. Normally, you would see a police car driving down the highway with the siren on and you think: “All right, that’s not so bad.” If an ambulance follows, then you begin to worry, but if the fire department follows with the siren on full blast, then you know that it is an emergency that cannot be handled simply by our police force. So I think it is important that we recognise that this legislation is keeping pace with the work that the fire department is already doing.

Therefore, I want to acknowledge—as others have done—Minister Dunne, Ruth Dyson, and members of the Government Administration Committee, because this is change that has been a long time coming. Certainly, this House has heard from both our leaders on this legislation on why the Labour Party is proud to stand and support this bill. We have done so right from the outset, despite the fact that there have been some issues that we have raised with the Minister of Internal Affairs. One particular issue that I raise again is that of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—I still believe that the word “service” ought to be there.

The other issue I suppose I have, after seeing an emergency where a plane crashed and lit up the city that it crashed into, is that I have to wonder why we exempted the airlines, because despite the fact that they spend a major part of their time in the air, if and when an accident occurs, and God forbid it does—that the airplanes crash—the debris of that accident lands on land and can destroy property and life. Therefore, when we are talking about the service, we are talking about a public good that everybody benefits from.

The other point I want to raise is that whilst this legislation ensures that Fire and Emergency New Zealand remains a Crown entity, I would say that the Minister responsible for the Crown entity needs to ensure that this department continues to have adequate funding here and throughout, because we are not just talking about a small entity; it is bound to grow because of population growth. Also, the costs are bound to grow because of the need for us to adequately pay for the services of our fire and emergency men and women.

The final point I want to raise is the issue around levies. Prior to the change of legislation, there were a lot of sources for the fire department, but now we are depending on the increase of that levy. There are some issues there regarding the museums and the discretion that is given to the Minister, and I would just say to the Minister that he needs to sort out whether the museums—a public good—end up paying based on the value of their assets. The Minister also needs to ensure that there is confidence in the new entity and confidence about the source of funding, so that it can get on with the job without having to worry about the politics of funding.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

Third Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa e hoa mā, tātau kua whakawhāiti mai nei ki te whakaoti i te kaupapa i whakairia ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare Pāremata i ngā tau kua hipa ake, ā, anei kua eke, kua eke i tēnei rā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all fellow colleagues, we compressed here to complete the matter that was hung before Parliament in the years that have passed, and now this day has finally arrived.]

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a third time.

Tuatahi, me whai wāhi au ki te mihi ki te tangata nei, ki te nanakia, ki te tipua nei, ki a Wī Pere, tētahi o te hunga e noho nei i tēnei Whare Pāremata i ōna rā. Ko ia he tangata tohe nā mō ngā āhuatanga o te Ao Māori. He tangata e iri nei i roto i te āhuatanga o te rārangi whakaahua o te hunga e noho nei hei mema Māori i roto i te Whare Pāremata. Nōna te whakaaro kia whakarite i tētahi rūnanga ā-rōpū na ki te tiaki i te āhuatanga o te whenua nei. Ka mihi, ka tangi ake me te kī atu, e Koro, hoki wairua mai ki roto i tō Whare Pāremata i tēnei rangi tonu nei!

Ka rua, me whai wāhi au ki te mihi ki te poari, e Alan tēnā koe e whakakanohi nei i te poari, ōtirā, koutou e noho nā ki reira ko Hēnare Lardelli, Trudy Meredith, Kīngi Smiler, and Hector Pere. Koutou nei e tiaki nei i te rawa i waihotia mai ai e Wī Pere i te wā i a ia. Ka mutu, ki taku mōhio ko tō rōia kei tō taha a Angela, tēnā koe kua hoki mai ki te kaupapa nei. Te āhua nei nāu anō rā i kōkiri i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Mēnā kei te whakarongo ētahi o te hunga e whai pānga ki tēnei o ngā kaupapa, ka mihi ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rangi, me te whakaaro ake, ē, kua eke tēnei kaupapa ki tōna taumata.

Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnei o ngā kaupapa, ā, i wānangatia e Te Rōpū Whāiti nei o te Whare Pāremata, arā, ko te Māori Affairs Committee. Me whai wāhi au ki te mihi ki tēnā, ki tēnā o ngā mema. Otirā, ki tā rātau Tiamana e noho nei ki muri nei. Tutehounuku Korako, ka nui te mihi ki a koe e ārahi nei i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Ka mutu, me mihi anō rā ki ngā āpiha, ki ngā ringaringa, ki ngā rā waewae, ki ngā ringa raupā o te kaupapa nei, ngā mea pēnei i a Tāria Tāhana e noho nā, ki a Greg Reilly, ki ētahi atu anō hoki o te hunga e noho nei ki runga ake nei, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou! Tēnā koutou i whakapau werawera ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa.

Ka mutu, ki ngā tari i āwhina anō hoki i Te Puni Kōkiri, ka mihi rā, tae atu ki Te Parliamentary Counsel Office. Nā koutou anō rā te kaupapa i tuhi kia tika i raro i te korowai o Te Whare Pāremata. Otirā Te Tari o Te Leader of the House, ka mihi rā ki a ia.

Mr Assistant Speaker, ko te ōrokohanga mai o tēnei o ngā poari. Tīmata mai ai i te tau 1899. Nā, ka mutu i whai wāhi tūturu nei, arā, ko Te Statutory Trust i te tau 1938. E ai ki ngā kōrero, tata eke ki te 460 te hunga whai pānga ki tēnei whenua, ka mutu, e 5,500 heketea te rahi o te whenua e tiakina nei e rātau. E ai ki ngā kōrero ko te wāriu o te whenua nei, tata eke ki te $65 miriona tāra. Arā anō ngā painga ō runga i te whenua – ko te mahi ahuwhenua, ko te mahi wāina, ko te mahi keri i te whenua. Ēnei kaupapa katoa, kei te whakahaeretia e tēnei o ngā poari.

Nō reira, ka mihi i ēnei āhuatanga katoa i Te Reo Māori, hei whaiwhai haere i te oati a Wī Pere i te wā i a ia. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Firstly, I need to take time to acknowledge this person, this not too bad a person, this deity, this Wī Pere, one of those who was a member of Parliament in his day. He was a persistent person in regard to aspects pertaining to Māoridom. His photo hangs among those who sat as a Māori member in Parliament. It was his proposal to consider establishing a corporate body to look after aspects relating to this land. I acknowledge, lament, and say, oh old one, come back in spirit to the House of Parliament today at this very moment.

Secondly, I need to take time to accord a tribute to the board, and to commend you in particular Alan, its face, but at the same I acknowledge you, Hēnare Lardelli, Trudy Meredith, Kīngi Smiler, and Hector Pere seated there. You indeed are the ones who looked after the assets that Wī Pere left behind in his time at the helm. Furthermore, and to my understanding, your lawyer Angela is sitting there beside you. Salutations to you who have come back to this matter. It appears that you championed it over the past years. Should some with interests in this matter be listening in, I acknowledge you all on this day, and I am thinking at the same time, hey, this matter has reached its pinnacle.

Mr Assistant Speaker, this is a matter that has indeed been critically analysed by one of the select committees of Parliament—namely, the Māori Affairs Committee. I need to take time to thank each committee member and furthermore, acknowledge their chair seated at the back here, Tutehounuku Korako, I acknowledge you greatly in your lead role in regard to this one of the matters. And what is more, I must acknowledge the officials once again and all those of this matter who worked on it—ones like Tāria Tāhana seated there, Greg Reilly, and others as well, sitting above in the gallery, I you appreciate greatly. My appreciation to you for the perspiration expended to complete this matter.

As well as that, I extend my gratitude as well to the departments that provided assistance, the Ministry of Māori Development and Parliamentary Counsel Office. You drafted the matter to ensure that it was correct under the cloak of Parliament. But at the same time, I acknowledge the office of the Leader of the House.

Mr Assistant Speaker, the origin of this one of the boards began in the year 1899. Eventually it became mandated under the Statutory Trust in 1938. According to the commentary, this land reached approximately 460 beneficiaries and furthermore, 5,500 hectares was the size of the land that they administered with a value of nearly $65 million. The benefits on the land are endless—agriculture, winemaking, and mining. All these initiatives are administered by this one of the boards.

And so I commend all these aspects in the Māori language as a means of following up Wī Pere’s oath in his time. Congratulations and accolades to you collectively and my appreciation to us all. ]

Māori purposes bills, by their nature, can bring together a number of different shapes and parts of legislation that sometimes actually have no connection whatsoever to one another. It is pretty much the case with this one. At the heart of this particular Māori Purposes Bill are the activities, and, I suppose, the shape and the function of the Wī Pere Trust, of Te Tai Rāwhiti, sitting alongside Te Rarawa, and sitting alongside other bills that, sort of, all come together in a conglomeration of new pieces of legislation.

I want just to acknowledge those who are in the gallery today: the chair, Alan Hāronga, who is a good Hato Tipene College—St Stephen’s—old boy.

Marama Fox: Ah!

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Oh, I am just saying.

Marama Fox: Ah!

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: He is the chairperson of the trust, I might add. Another St Stephen’s old boy is Tutehounuku Korako, who is a fine—well, I will leave it at that. But he is a fine member of Parliament and a good St Stephen’s old boy.

To draw us back to the bill, this bill establishes a new trust board structure for the Wī Pere Trust, and a constitution, reflecting the trust board’s primary accountabilities to its beneficiaries. The bill strengthens the trust’s accountabilities, and includes a disputes resolution process. There are provisions for increased participation of beneficiaries at general meetings, and beneficiaries can propose changes to the constitution. Under the bill, the trust board will be able to administer its own register of beneficiaries. This actually means that the trust board will be able to manage the unique succession arrangements that secure Wī Pere’s legacy through his whakapapa.

Approximately 29 percent of the trust’s total landholdings, when acquired, was general land. Legislation in place since 1938 deemed all general land acquired by the trust to be Māori freehold land. This land will revert to general land status, restoring a mixed portfolio of land. This will provide a greater range of economic options available to the trust, which they thought-out well before bringing this particular bill under my purview. The remaining Māori freehold land, which comprises two-thirds of the trust’s landholdings, will continue to clear statutory projections. The bill clarifies the jurisdiction of the courts in relation to the trust. The Māori Land Court will be available to resolve disputes about lineal descent related to the trust’s Māori freehold land.

The High Court will be responsible for hearing disputes about the administration of the trust that cannot be resolved through the trust’s disputes resolution procedures as well as matters involving general land. The new arrangements for the Wī Pere Trust are contained in Part 1 of this bill, and the remainder of the bill contains technical amendments to other pieces of legislation, which I referred to earlier.

I just want to say in closing that in respect of the whole way that this bill has come through, all of the recommendations—in fact this whole bill—were provided by the guidance of the trust itself. It has discussed things with the beneficiaries, and I am pleased to say that in our debate that concluded, pretty much, yesterday—the Committee stage—there was an acknowledgment of that.

I will just mention the other parts of the bill. Part 1A of the bill repeals redundant clauses in the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003, relating to Te Pūtahi Pāoho, which has now been disestablished. Part 1B of the bill amends the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015 to recognise the mandated iwi organisation status of Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. Part 2 of the bill makes a technical change to the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provision) Order 2012 to correctly describe the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board. Part 3 amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 to remove inequitable financial reporting requirements for Māori incorporations. All of these were pretty non-controversial pieces of legislation—technical amendments—included in this particular bill at the Committee stage.

In closing, it is with real, great pleasure, and, indeed, it is an honour that I have ushered this particular bill through to this point in the House. I do not take these sorts of bills lightly—in particular, when you are dealing with the legacy left by Wī Pere, an honourable member of this House. I am really pleased that we have actually arrived here at the third reading. After all the time that we have put in to get it to here, it seems, sort of, a little bit sad to give it just 10 minutes, but be that as it may, that is how we are.

I wish to thank the Wī Pere Trust for its patience during the time that this bill has been before the House. The trust, I think, has a proud legacy and with this new legislation it can look forward to building on that legacy for the prosperity of all its beneficiaries. I understand that Wī Pere once said in this House that Parliament would never consider a bill that recognised the mana of Māori to manage their own land until all that land is gone. Today we can all be proud that we are enacting a bill that recognises the mana of Wī Pere’s descendants to manage the 5,500 hectares still retained within their ownership. I can say too that the new Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill follows the same pattern. I commend this bill to the House. Congratulations.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka haere tonu ngā kōrero, ngā mihimihi atu ki tērā o ngā tūpuna rangatira a Wī Pere, he tangata tino whai moemoeā mō ōna uri. Ahakoa kua whānau ia i roto i Te Ao Kōhatu i te tau toru i mua i te hainatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ā, kua whai moemoeā a ia, kua whai whakaaro hoki a ia i roto i Te Ao Hou. Kua taea e ia te kitea, ko te matakite pea, te kupu tika i Te Ao Hou kei mua i a ia me āna tamariki. Koia te take nāna i whakatū i tēnei Tarahiti o Te Wī Pere hei whakahaere, hei whakaū i te mana o ōna whenua, hei whakatōpūngia i ōna whenua mō āna uri.

E tika ana ngā kōrero o Te Minita a Te Ururoa Flavell, mō ōna kaha ki roto i tēnei Whare. Kua pōtingia ia ki roto i tēnei Whare i Te Pāremata Tuaiwa. Kua puta ki waho a ia mō wētahi wā, kua hoki mai ia i Te Pāremata Tekau Mā Rua. I te tau 1899 nāna i whakatū Te Wī Pere Trust hei tiaki i te mana o ngā whenua, o ōna whenua mō āna uri. Kei te haere tonu taua tarahiti—118 tau i muri atu. I roto i tēnā wā kua whakawhānuitia ngā mahi, ngā āhuatanga kei runga i aua whenua kia tae atu te wāriu o taua pakihi ki te 65 miriona taara. Nā reira, koia te raukaha o te moemoeā o Wī Pere. Nā reira, e tika ana mō tātou ki te mihi atu ki a ia. Nāna i tū ai hei tauira mō tātau katoa.

Mehemea ka tirohia whānuitia e tātou Te Motu, ka kite wētahi atu o ngā wāhi whenua Māori horekau e whai ana i ngā hua pērā i Te Wī Pere Trust. Nā reira, kei te mihi atu ahau ki a ia, ka tautoko i ngā mihi ki ngā tarahiti e noho ana ki roto i Te Whare nei, Alan, tēnā rā koe, me tō rōpū i tae mai nei hei kitea i tēnei pire e whakamanahia ana e tēnei Whare.

Te Kāhui Māori o Te Rōpū Reipa i haere i tērā tau, hei tirohia i ngā mahinga o Te Wī Pere Trust. Kei te mihi tonu ki a rātou o te tarahiti mō ngā manaakitanga i ūwhia mai ki runga i a mātou i taua rangi. Kua mīharo te kitea i te pai o ngā whenua, te rahi o te kāhui hipi e whaiwhai haere ana i ngā kaupoai o Te Tai Rāwhiti, te kite i ngā hua whenua e tipu ana, me wērā āhuatanga katoa e whakapakari ana i ngā uri o Wī Pere.

I te wā o tōna matenga, nā Tā Apirana Ngata i mea atu, horekau he tangata i tua atu i a Wī Pere, i whakapau i ōna kaha hei hāpai i tōna iwi. Nā reira, e tika ana kia haere tonu aua mihimihi ki te rangatira rā! Ā, i roto i tēnei Whare nā mātou i wānangahia kua roa e tārewa ana, e whakahaere ana ki roto i tēnei Whare. I te tau 2015 kua uru mai te pire ki roto i Te Whare nei. Nā reira, tata ana ki te rua tau mātou e wānangahia ana i tēnei pire. Kīhai te katoa o ngā kaitono i tautokongia ai i tēnei pire, ēngari, ki tāku nei whakaaro, ki tāku nei titiro ā te mutunga kua ea ngā āwangawanga, he pire pai tēnei! Ahakoa wētahi e whakahē ana, ki te nuinga o ngā uri o Wī Pere, he pire tino kaha, tino pai tēnei!

E tika ana hoki ngā kōrero a Te Minita. Ko wēnei tūmomo pire. pērā i Te Māori Purposes Bill, he rerekē ngā wahanga o te pire. Nā i te kōrero mātou mō Te Wī Pere Trust kai roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti, he wāhanga anō mō ōku whanaunga kei roto Te Rarawa, kei roto i Te Tai Tokerau, he wāhanga anō mō Te Rōpū Pouaka Whakaata ēngari, e pai ana tēnā. Aua wāhanga atu, horekau he raruraru mō aua āwangawanga, ahakoa kua ohorere mātou i te wā o te whiringa o te Whare nei, o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei, i te urutanga mai o te pire, te wahanga mō Te Rarawa. Ēngari, i te pānuitanga o taua wahanga mō Te Rarawa kua kitea he mea pai hei āwhina, hei tautoko i a Te Rarawa ki te whakahaerengia ō rātou pūtea e pā ana ki Te Ture mō Te Hī Ika. Nā reira, kei te tautoko mātou e taea ana e Te Rarawa te whakahaere a rātou mahi ki te whakamanahia i tētahi rōpū hei pupuri i ngā pūtea.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The comments and tributes continue about that one of the esteemed ancestral forefathers, Wī Pere, a person who really had a dream for his descendants. Although he was born in the stone age, 3 years before the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, he had a dream and a thought as well in the new world. He was able to visualise—prophesise is perhaps the correct word—the new world before him and his children. That in particular was the reason for Wī Pere to establish this Wī Pere Trust to administer, reinforce the legality of his lands, and consolidate them for his descendants.

The Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, is right about the efforts Wī Pere expended in this Parliament. He was voted into this Parliament during the ninth Parliament. He went out for a time but returned during the 12th Parliament. In the year 1899 he established the Wī Pere Trust to safeguard the legality of land and of his lands for his descendants. That trust continues to exist—118 years later. During that time operations and functions upon those lands have expanded, and the value of that business has reached $65 million. So that indeed is the capacity of Wī Pere’s dream. Therefore it is only right for us to commend him. He stood as an example for us all.

If we were to look widely at the country, we will note that some parcels of Māori land do not have benefits like those of Wī Pere. And so I acknowledge him and endorse the accolades accorded to the trustees seated here in the House. Alan, I salute you and your group who have arrived here to see the empowering of this bill in this House.

Last year the Māori caucus of the Labour Party went to examine the operations of the Wī Pere Trust, and they continue to applaud the way the trustees hosted us that day. It was wonderful to see how well the lands looked, the sheep numbers in the flocks being shepherded by the cowboys of the East Coast, the crops flourishing, and all aspects relating to the development of Wī Pere’s descendants.

Upon Wī Pere’s death, it was Sir Apirana Ngata who stated that no other person beyond Wī Pere had expended his efforts as he did to help his people. And so it is appropriate that we continue to acknowledge this leader. In this House, we have debated this matter for a long time. In 2015 the bill came before the House and so we have spent nearly 2 years debating it. Not all submitters supported this bill. But in my opinion, and as I perceive it, most of Wī Pere’s descendants are convinced that this is a strong and excellent bill. Therefore it is apt those tributes to that esteemed one should go on. In this House we debated the lengthy time of suspension, and how it was proceeding in this House.

In 2015 the bill arrived and it was introduced into this House. And so for nearly 2 years we debated this bill. Not all of the submitters endorsed this bill, but according to my thinking and in my view the concerns were eventually satisfied. This is a good bill. Although some opposed it, the majority of Wī Pere’s relatives said this was a very good bill and a very strong one.

The Minister’s statements are correct as well. These kinds of bills, like the Māori Purposes Bill, have parts that are different. We have been talking about the Wī Pere Trust in the East Coast but there is a part as well about my relatives from within Te Rarawa in the Far North, and a part that pertains to the Māori Television Service, but that is fine.

As far as those other parts are concerned, there is not a problem about those concerns with those other parts, although we were surprised during the debate time of this House in the Committee stage at the introduction of the bill, the part relating to Te Rarawa. But during the reading of that part it was found to be a good thing, helpful and supportive of Te Rarawa in the administration of their funding concerning the Fisheries Act. And so we endorse the ability of Te Rarawa to conduct their affairs and to empower a group retaining money for funding.]

In the short time I have got left, I would just like to continue the acknowledgments of Wī Pere himself. He was a man who we say was born in the stone age—te ao kōhatu—3 years before the Treaty of Waitangi, but with his vision for his people he could see what was needed in the future for his people, and so he established the Wī Pere Trust in 1899. And, 118 years later, that trust has flourished and grown to the extent that it has some $65 million in assets.

That example that Wī Pere set is an example for everyone. We can look around the country and we can see other bits and pieces of Māori land and groups, and they are sort of not really achieving the same results, and that is really unfortunate because, with the remaining bits of land that Māori do possess, although it is a very small percentage of the total land mass of New Zealand, there is still enough, actually—if we got our acts together collectively, we could actually emulate what the Wī Pere Trust has done and grow the wealth and the capacity of our people and our descendants.

So I really do acknowledge the vision that Wī Pere had all those years ago, and I also have to acknowledge the way the trust in those 118 years since he established it has managed to grow it to the extent it has. So, you know, just big accolades to them.

The Minister for Māori Development is right too in regards to these Māori purposes bills. There are bits and pieces from here, there, and everywhere. The majority of the bill is about the Wī Pere Trust, but a Supplementary Order Paper was introduced regarding helping Te Rarawa manage their business. There is another bit about the television service. Those are non-controversial and, you know, it is just sort of the nature of these Māori purposes bills that we have these disparate bits and pieces attached to them.

But the main part of the bill is about the Wī Pere Trust. The Māori caucus of the Labour Party was fortunate enough to visit Gisborne last year, and we saw the extent of the landholdings and the sheep farms, and there were guys on the horses there rounding up sheep, and we saw the persimmons, the orchards, and all the other interests that are going on at the Wī Pere Trust. It really is quite a magnificent site, and, as I said earlier, it does stand as an example to other whānau, hapū, and iwi groups.

So the Labour Party does support this bill. We wish the Wī Pere Trust all the best with its future endeavours. We hope that the bill serves its purpose and helps it to grow and strengthen itself. I also acknowledge Te Rarawa and hope that the small part that they have in this bill also helps them to grow their interests.

Nā reira e Te Whare huri rauna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, to the House throughout, I commend and applaud you collectively and appreciate us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, mauri ora. E mihi atu ki a koutou ngā rakatira o Te Wī Pere Trust, ki a koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere, e hoa o Te Kura o Tipene, e Alan, ngā mihi. Nō reira, huri noa i Te Whare nei, piki mai, kake mai, hōmai te wairua.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and wellness to you. I acknowledge you, esteemed ones of the Wī Pere Trust, and to you the director, Alan, and friend of St Stephen’s School, greetings. So ascend and come aboard throughout this House bring forth the spirit.]

I rise in total support of the Māori Purposes Bill. This is a bill that the Māori Affairs Committee has worked very, very hard on. It is also, indeed, a bill that we have worked on in a very, very collegial and cross-party way, which is very, very typical, actually, of the Māori Affairs Committee.

This was, no doubt, helped by the fact that we all agreed on the need for this particular bill. We agreed that it also needed to be relevant in the 21st century. In saying that, about agreement, I said that we agreed to most of it, but there was a part of the bill—and I want to acknowledge this part—that we had disagreement on. It was only one part of it. But I particularly want to acknowledge my colleague from the Labour Party Meka Whaitiri. Meka worked very hard on a provision that she was keen to see changed but that, ultimately, this House, during the Committee of the whole House stage, actually voted down.

Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper 205 was around the jurisdiction of the courts in relation to the Wī Pere Trust. I think the argument that Meka Whaitiri was arguing is, in principle, a good one, and that is that the court that has the expertise in a particular area should be hearing the cases related to that specific area and, secondly, that we should ensure that the court costs are not a barrier to disputes that are actually being resolved. However, our view on this side of the Chamber was, actually, what the bill achieves in its current form—it was about that one: the Māori Land Court does have particular expertise, we acknowledge that, in matters related to Māori freehold land. Under this bill, it has jurisdiction over those matters. However, there is the potential for other types of disputes to arise related to commerce, related to administration, and related to governance. The High Court of New Zealand has the expertise to deal with these issues and has a wider expertise than the Māori Land Court.

I would also like to point out that we could expect to see only very serious cases making it to the High Court. And there is a disputes resolution process, which is contained within the bill, that should prevent most, if not all, cases from making it to the costly stage of a case before the High Court. So we were very comfortable with the form of the bill as it is and the very clear demarcation of jurisdiction between the High Court and the Māori Land Court.

I am not going to go into any more great detail on the provisions of this bill, because I think the Minister for Māori Development, another old boy of Hato Tipene College, has actually covered that very, very well, as previous speakers have. One thing about this bill is that it is good to see that the Wī Pere Trust is thinking about how it can better use its resources to improve the lives of its beneficiaries by making better uses of the assets. This is very much about wealth creation for shareholders within the trust. It is actually not about wealth redistribution. And on this side of the House, that is exactly what we tautoko.

On that note, I actually want to thank again and acknowledge all of the officials, everyone who was involved, but particularly my members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who actually brought this bill all the way through to where it is today. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou, kia ora.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei e huihui mai nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but, at the same time, acknowledgments and accolades to you, the members of this House assembled here. My appreciation to us all.]

I am pleased to rise as the member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and as an uri of Wī Pere. As the great-great-grandniece of Wī Pere, I am proud to stand here in support of this bill. Can I please also offer my warm words of welcome to our trustees who are here in the House, and commend them for their patience in getting to where we are in this third and final reading.

Can I address the point that was raised by the member who just resumed his seat, our very hard-working chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako. I want to use the time that I have to address the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—Supplementary Order Paper 205—that I put to the Committee and give it some context, and I thank that member for acknowledging it.

As my colleague Kelvin Davis expressed, the Wī Pere Trust is a very modern organisation, which we had the privilege to visit last year. We were very impressed with the operations that we were able to visit in terms of farming—in terms of the kiwifruit and the persimmons and all the other exciting ventures that are taking place on the trust’s lands.

I too want to acknowledge Wī Pere’s vision, going back so many years ago—a vision that is very much coming alive some 100-odd years later. What I also know about the man Wī Pere is his absolute love for his people and his work to ensure that the lands he was able to obtain were going to remain in their hands for ever and ever. Here, as we pass this bill and we modernise the instruments available to the trust to take it through the next hundred years—that is what we are talking about here—I want to commend the members of the select committee and, obviously, the trust for modernising its organisation as we head into the 21st century.

One thing I believe Wī Pere was about was ensuring that all his descendants—all his descendants—could participate in the wealth and the opportunities that come from his land. It is to that point that I want to reference one of the submissions that came in, to ensure that the smallest voices of the shareholders, who are linear descendants of Wī Pere, are also heard as we modernise this trust.

This is what they said: “As a whānau, we need to balance our values as a Māori whānau with fulfilling our potential in a modern-day global world. The bill, in my opinion, is a leaning towards the modern with less regard to what makes us as a Māori whānau, or our hapū or our iwi. Our whānau instilled in me the need to look out for and support all of our whānau, including the rawakore and those less privileged. I know she would want me to stand up for our whānau who would not be able to put the upfront costs to filling an application for judicial review in the High Court. More to the point, I know my grandmother and many of my cousins, who played an instrumental part in working and developing our ancestral lands, will be shocked to know that the Māori Land Court is no longer a highly significant instrument for our people if this bill passes. It is my fear that this bill may be perceived to be the start of the end of the Māori Land Court and a signal of support for the reforms of Te Ture Whenua Act. I personally do not want this action with the Wī Pere name associated with it. I ask that the Māori Land Court retains jurisdiction in full, with the administration governance of the Wī Pere Trust.”

That submission was taken by a lawyer based in Gisborne, a linear descendant of Wī Pere who has worked her entire life in the Gisborne area and is currently a chief executive officer of one of the iwi organisations. There is a push from certain descendants of Wī Pere to ensure that we are not leaving behind those smaller shareholdings in the running of the trust, so my SOP, which rightly got voted down by the Committee, was tabled in regard to ensuring the smaller shareholders’ voices in the Wī Pere Trust are not lost.

My Supplementary Order Paper was to amend clause 9 by deleting new sections 5(2) and (3) and by amending the heading to new section 5. The explanatory note says: “The provisions, the removal of which is proposed, seek to establish the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the Wi Pere Trust, and makes explicit that the Māori Land Court has no jurisdiction over any such dispute. The amendment would retain the status quo, with the Māori Land Court having jurisdiction. The Māori Land Court has expertise in Māori customary law that the High Court does not. Also, the costs associated [with] the High Court process are substantially greater than those of the Māori Land Court. This would disadvantage the ability of stakeholders to access justice.”

I want to thank the Committee for considering my Supplementary Order Paper in the manner in which it was given. I was told that in this bill, the Māori Land Court will retain jurisdiction in relation to linear descendants and also in relation to the tribal lands. I am happy with that outcome.

There were some assertions here that the High Court has more commercial expertise over the Māori Land Court. If it pleases the House, I want to read a quote from Garrow and Kelly’s Law of Trusts and Trustees, 7th edition, 2013, chapter 29, entitled “Maori Land Court’s Trust Jurisdiction: Prudent Investment, Directions of the Court”.

The quote goes like this: “Where the Maori Land Court has jurisdiction, trustees may seek directions of the court in the same way that trustees may seek directions from the High Court under s 66 of the Trustee Act 1956. Failure to seek directions where risky or doubtful investments are proposed may constitute grounds for removal of trustees. While it has been noted that the assumption trustees can readily and inexpensively obtain High Court directions under s 66 is no longer realistic, it is fair to say that the directions of the Maori Land Court can usually be obtained more easily and with less expense. In this respect the Maori Land Court is closer to the historic role of the Chancery Court in England as a protector available to supervise trustees when required.”

I want to table that and I want, again, to support the role of the Māori Land Court when it comes to commercial interests, as stated in the quote that I just then gave you. That has been what this House has voted against—voting that the Māori Land Court does not have that ability to rule on commercial matters—so I wanted to explain the reason why I put up the SOP.

I still believe that the Māori Land Court is the best place to look after the interests of all shareholders of the Wī Pere Trust and of all the future descendants. Having said that, I stand with all members of the House to support this progressive bill, so that the vision of the great man Wī Pere continues going forward. But it is important that I put the case to this House—and that it goes on record—as to why I put that SOP up, and I stand by the ability of the Māori Land Court to deliver in a commercial way. Nō reira, I commend this bill and I wish the trust all the very best. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to this bill today, and I also would like to acknowledge the Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, and the Māori Affairs Committee for getting this bill to its final reading today.

For the Wī Pere Trust, this bill clarifies and modernises relationships between the two main actors: the trust and the beneficiaries. The trust has done well—it is not broken—but the trust is seeking the ability to do even better.

For the trust, structurally it changes from a family trust to an incorporated trust board, with a body corporate structure and limited liability company requirements. The benefits of this are the ability to improve economic and management efficiencies in a more corporate structure, including the ability for the trust to hold general land and not just Māori freehold land for investment purposes. For the beneficiaries, there are many benefits, including the expected economic benefits of a corporate structure. There is also clarification of direct lineal succession from Wī Pere. In the middle, between the trust and the beneficiaries, is accountability of the trust to the beneficiaries, and this accountability is maintained and enhanced by recourse to the constitution, the Trustee Act 1956, and Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which is in progress.

This is a wonderful footprint that Wī Pere has left. I understand that at its inception—in 1899—it was challenging and yet here it is today, on the basis of what may be valued at around $66 million, advancing the interests of descendants and beneficiaries. This is a very good thing, and it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki ōku hoa kaimahi o Te Whare Pāremata, tēnā tātau katoa, nau mai, nau mai, ngā tanata, ngā uri o Wīremu Pere me te whakanuia! Me whakanuia e mātou koutou o Te Kaitiaki Wī Pere nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and turning to my fellow work colleagues of Parliament, acknowledgments to us all. Welcome, come hither to the people and relatives of Wīremu Pere, whom we honour. We must celebrate you, the Wī Pere Trust, so well done, congratulations to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all.]

It is a pleasure and an honour to stand for Te Pāti Kākāriki to support the Māori Purposes Bill, which is allowing and supporting the Wī Pere Trust to have a more modern approach for its workings with its whānau and its uri, to oversee and bear the fruit of the visions of the tupuna Wīremu Pere, to hold and acquire general lands for investment purposes, and to improve and have a bit of a sweep-up and a clean-up of governance practices. Particularly because the bill is consistent with the Green Party principle of giving Māori organisations greater autonomy and removing unnecessary Crown and ministerial involvement in the affairs of Māori, the Green Party absolutely must support this bill. I want to congratulate Minister Te Ururoa Flavell, firstly, but mainly the Wī Pere Trust on all the hard mahi and the conversations and the long waiting as we have gone through this process to arrive at what you want, and on having the legislation arrive here for the third reading of this bill.

The history is important, and I do want to add the Green Party’s acknowledgment and recognition of the tupuna Wīremu Pere. The Wī Pere Trust was set up in 1899, so this has a legacy—a long legacy—to administer the estate of Wīremu Pere for the whānau and for the uri. He was, of course, an MP for Eastern Maori in the late 1800s, and I want to add our acknowledgment of that whakapapa and of the uri and whānau since then.

I want to take a pause to think about the inspiration that the Wī Pere Trust and this legislation are providing as iwi and hapū and whānau around the country are wrestling with, and working through, the ways of finding our own autonomy and affirming our tino rangatiratanga over our own affairs, and this is not a simple process. We have existed and survived through colonisation, and we are now turning to trying to figure out what is the Māori way and what is the way that we come through the commercial and corporate legacy that was put upon us, which was often in direct hostility to our own tikanga and kaupapa and Māori world view. That was foisted upon us, and it is the reality that we live in. The Wī Pere Trust is making an incredible effort to find a way through all of that and arrive at something that is quite specifically Māori.

I have the confidence—I do want to address and acknowledge, as well, the concerns that were raised by the some of the whānau of the trust, of the uri. I think my colleague Meka Whaitiri put it well: how do we ensure that it is all of the descendants who are able to participate in both the decision-making processes and the fruits of trying to work through a different approach of the workings of the trust—upholding the visions of Wīremu Pere, which, of course, would have always been for the benefit of all uri and whānau? For that reason, I acknowledge the whānau concerns that were raised in submissions.

I acknowledge that there was some concern over the instance of the trustees being rolled immediately over to the new organisation, as opposed to having an immediate election. I acknowledge that concern. We talked about it heavily at the Māori Affairs Committee, and I have confidence and hope in the fact that that new organisation will still have the ongoing election processes, and we can take comfort that there is still that level of accountability, if not right at the immediate establishment of the new organisation.

I acknowledge that whānau had concerns about the level of communication. It is certainly not a new instance that comes before the Māori Affairs Committee for any consultation process, as identities and iwi settlements around the country try to work through a process that often is not even ours. I acknowledge those concerns. I acknowledge that there were some concerns with the High Court jurisdiction and the threshold to the High Court being too high or too low. Again, we talked about all of these issues in the select committee and tried to find the best way through.

I acknowledge that there were concerns raised about conflicts of interest, and it was something that I particularly advocated for at the Māori Affairs Committee—that there be a register for people to acknowledge conflicts of interest. I also acknowledge the concern with the status and transfer of freehold lands and how that would impact on corpus lands.

With all of these concerns, we at the Māori Affairs Committee and those working with the Minister tried to make the best out of this process of Crown legislation and arrive at something that we can all support and sleep comfortably with at night. I feel that that is what we have done. I take hope that the whānau can continue to raise their concerns. This is never going to be perfect from the start, and I take hope and say to all whānau and everybody in the trust: we are here—your representatives in Parliament are here to support the raruraru and difficulties, and to celebrate the hua that will come from establishing this new organisation.

I end with again acknowledging the hard work of the trust in trying to get something that was driven by it, envisioned by it, and that brought us here today by working with the Minister. I acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. It is an absolute pleasure to be able to genuinely sit down and truly want the best for our people, and to collaborate in that hope. I can stand here with hand on heart and say that we absolutely did want to uphold the visions of the Wī Pere Trust and the visions of its tūpuna. It is difficult to be able to say that in this role as a member of Parliament.

I will end by referring back to one of my original points: the inspiration that trusts like Wī Pere and organisations and processes like the one the Wī Pere Trust has just gone through are part of a nationwide, Aotearoa-wide narrative of Māori organisations large and small wrestling our way through generations of colonial impact on our own systems, structures, and ways of working and relating to each other and to our planet and to our legacy—both our tūpuna and our mokopuna who are not quite in Te Ao Mārama. I acknowledge that we are in that place, and we are trying our best to work through it. I hope that we can continue to work as representatives of the Crown to support Māori, to acknowledge the difficulties and to validate them, to acknowledge that a corporate commercial agenda has not always necessarily fitted with a tikanga Māori world view. I hope we can trust in our own people and arrive at the best way forward for Te Ao Māori to maintain and uphold its own tino rangatiratanga. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho tahi i roto Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā koutou ngā kaiwhakahaere o Te Rōpū nei, arā, ko Alan me tō Rōpū i haere mai ki waenganui i a mātou ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero i puta mai, mai i ngā mema Pāremata e pā ana ki tēnei pire.

Ēngari i mua te haere tonu, i rongo au ngā kōrero a Te Minita, kia tū kaha rawa ngā mihi ki a koutou ngā tauira tawhito o Te Kura o Tīpene. Horekau, he raru ki tēnā ēngari, ko taku pātai ki a koutou, kei hea tō koutou Kura i āianei nā? Moumou tāima! Kia ahatia! Ēngari, ā, horekau e hiahia ana kia whakamārama he aha nā tō take i pēnā! Ēngari, Mr Assistant Speaker, hiahia ana au ki te mihi tonu ki tēnā, tetahi o ngā kura māhita o taua kura, a Betty McPherson. Ko ia i rūpeke ki tua o te ārai. Horekau he raru e pā ana ki tēnā mihi ki te pire nei nā te mea i roto i te pire nei, ki tēnei tetahi wāhanga e pā ana ki tōna iwi a Te Rarawa. Nā reira e te whāea haere hoki atu. Karekau kē e mimiti te puna kōrero mōu. Nā reira haere, haere hoki atu! Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us also seated together here in this House, and to you collectively, the administrators of this organisation, namely Alan and your group who came here to be amongst us to listen to the contributions that have emerged from the members in relation to this bill.

But before I go any further, I heard the sentiments by the Minister to be upstanding and to acknowledge you strongly, the former students of St Stephen’s. There is not a problem with that but my question to you is: where is your school now? A sheer waste of time. What can be done about that? Mr Assistant Speaker, I really want to pay a tribute to one of the teachers of that school, Betty McPherson. She has assembled beyond the divide. There is not a concern about paying a tribute to her, because there is a part about her Te Rarawa tribe in this bill. And so to you beloved matriarch, go forth, return; the pool of tributes for you will never diminish. Therefore, depart, travel on, return. I come back to us the living; acknowledgments and accolades to you collectively with my appreciation once again to us all.]

I rise to contribute to the debate in relation to the Māori Purposes Bill before us. Can I just say that when it was originally introduced into the House it should have been called the “Wī Pere Trust Bill”. But because of certain technicalities, and if you want to make a change without introducing a new bill, then this is what the Māori Purposes Bill is all about. Since then the bill has been extended to make technical amendments to three other bills, at least, including my reference to Te Rarawa and creating a particular mandated iwi organisation.

I also want to place on record my acknowledgment to the trustees for the work that they have done in assisting Minister Flavell in bringing this bill to the House, and commend them for their influence in determining what should be included in the bill. People have said that this bill is all about increasing the value of the assets of the Wī Pere Trust. Can I say it is more about streamlining the administration to allow the trustees to do things that they may not have been able to do prior to this bill. People have used the word “corporate”, and I think it is very applicable that, in a real sense, this bill is all about corporatising the trust to a new level.

Having said that, when the bill was first introduced New Zealand First did have a question as to why we needed to make these amendments. Be that as it may, the amendments have been made. One of the concerns that we had was in regard to the involvement of the Māori Land Court. I referred to clause 27 of the proposed constitution, where the wording is that the “Māori Land Court may determine who is lineal descendant of Wi Pere.”

Can I say that New Zealand First took some time to discuss this amongst ourselves, and, in fact, we actually prepared and proposed a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the word “may” to “must”. However, our legal advice was that it would not make any difference, so in regard to that particular concern we felt that we did not need to carry that on any further. Of course, the reference to dispute resolution and the use of the High Court—New Zealand First expressed a view during the committee stages of the bill about the possibility of the trustees making more use of the High Court to settle disputes using trust resources, as opposed to the people who had a differing view and wanted to enter into a dispute having to use their own resources.

Apart from that, we in New Zealand First feel that this bill recognises a former member of this House—someone who has certainly left his mark in the annals of this House and of this country. This bill certainly acknowledges that contribution, in a way.

I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the trustees. While they may draw some criticism from the very beneficiaries whom they represent, at the end of the day they know what their responsibilities are. They know that if they do anything untoward, it is something that they will have to face. Of course, like all corporates, they will probably have liability insurance to cover them.

I also want to acknowledge that from the inception of this trust, to now having an asset base in the region of $66 million, is certainly a testament to the way that this trust has been administered over the years. It contributes to its local community, not only to its beneficiaries but to its local community, in terms of the communal activities. I certainly support that notion.

Also, they have increased their commercial interests, and I think it sets a blueprint for a whole lot of other Māori trusts that are in similar circumstances, but do not have the same opportunity of having a special Act to set up their constitution and how they should operate.

In conclusion, again, we in New Zealand First want to commend the Māori Affairs Committee, the officials who assisted the committee, and all those who made submissions to assist the committee in reaching the decision that it did make in supporting this bill. Kia ora.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ngā mihi ki a koutou ngā Kaitiaki ki Te Wī Pere Trust, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, the trustees of the Wī Pere Trust. Welcome to Parliament; come hither.]

Peeni Henare: Ka pai, Jono. Ka pai.

Meka Whaitiri: Kia ora. Kia ora. Kia ora.

Peeni Henare: Ka pai. Keep going.

JONO NAYLOR: It is a—ha, ha! It is a great day, I believe, when we actually—there are a couple of things that are happening here. Firstly, it is great to see the old boys of St Bede’s College finally outnumbered in the debating Chamber of Parliament. Normally there are so many of them floating around, it is hard for any school to get a look in. So congratulations to those old boys of Tipene.

I particularly wanted to talk about something that is close to my heart with regard to the passing of this legislation. This legislation, while on one level referring to a particular trust, is also symbolic to me of a change that is happening across Aotearoa New Zealand right now. The opportunity for Te Ao Māori to actually take back further control of its own destiny is a positive thing for New Zealand, a positive thing for Māori. As a recent Pōua to my first mokopuna, it is encouraging to me to be able to see that he will be able to walk in his Pākehā world, but he is also going to be able to walk stronger in Te Ao Māori because of this type of legislation, because of these types of things that are going on.

I want to commend the Wī Pere Trust for actually looking to take greater destiny in their own hands, to provide to a greater extent for the beneficiaries of the trust. I want to congratulate the Minister for Māori Development for sponsoring this bill through the House. To my good colleague Nuk Korako and his colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, I congratulate them all on bringing this through, and I commend this to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. Ko te mea tuatahi i tuku mihi atu atu ki a koutou ngā uri o Wī Pere kua tae mai ki Te Whare Pāremata nei. E whakapiri ana taku mi’i ki ngā mi’i kua mi’ia e ngā rangatira o Te Whare nei, nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time my acknowledgments to us all. The first thing is to acknowledge you, the relatives of Wī Pere who have arrived here at Parliament. I add my tributes to those accorded by esteemed ones of this House. Therefore, well done to you all.]

It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Māori Purposes Bill, and, of course, the major part of this bill is on the Wī Pere Trust. I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and its chair, Tutehounuku Korako, for the work that they did. I had the pleasure of spending a day in Gisborne hearing evidence from submitters, and I want to acknowledge all of the submitters for the information that they provided in a very dignified and straightforward way.

I think that the changes to the governance arrangements of the Wī Pere Trust are very important. I would not characterise them as my colleague Pita Paraone from New Zealand First has characterised them. I would characterise them as empowering—empowering decision-making from a Māori world view. Along with that goes the responsibility on the trustees to continually uphold the legacy that they have inherited, and I believe that that is exactly what will happen.

So I congratulate the trustees, and I should also acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, as well, for the work on this piece of legislation and for bringing it to the House. I think that the governance arrangements up to now—with certain ministerial involvement—was, shall we say, from a different era and a more paternalistic time, so these new arrangements are far better suited to a modern trust that is operating on behalf of all of its beneficiaries in a modern world.

I do also join with my colleagues who have acknowledged the contributions of the beneficiaries through their submissions around their concerns. I sincerely hope that the changes that we will pass into law today are a mechanism that also empowers the beneficiaries to participate in the arrangements of the trust, in their collective interests. I want to acknowledge the concerns and questions that were raised through that process. I am very satisfied that they have been addressed appropriately, and so I support this legislation.

I also want to turn my attention to the other parts within the Māori Purposes Bill—in particular, to new Part 1B of the Māori Purposes Bill, which was inserted in the bill through Supplementary Order Paper 234 at the Committee stage. Ā, tuku i Te Reo mihi atu ki ngā uri katoa o Te Rarawa i roto i tēnei wāhanga o te pire nei.

[And so a welcoming word to all the descendants of Te Rarawa in this part of this bill here.]

I want to send my greetings to the people of Te Rarawa and acknowledge the significance of this part within this legislation. Having Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, a pre-settlement entity that is a charitable trust with the name Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, which was the mandated iwi organisation for the purposes of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and then having their settlement go through—as many of us in the House know, there are certain requirements of the Treaty settlement process that require a certain type of entity to receive settlement assets, and, of course, you end up with two, which are the pre-settlement entity for the iwi and the post-settlement entity for the iwi. One has the settlement assets from the Treaty settlement and one has the settlement assets from the Maori Fisheries Act. They are incompatible, and they have a process that they have to go to for Te Ohu Kaimoana—their own process.

So the insertion of this new Part 1B in the Māori Purposes Bill resolves very tidily and neatly that situation, whereby the settlement assets can be transferred from the charitable trust into the new post-settlement governance entity. Not only does it do that, but it also recognises the new settlement entity as if it had been recognised in the 2004 Act, from the time of 2004. I think that is definitely appropriate in this instance, because it is the same beneficiaries and it is the same governance, but they are two separate settlement arrangements. I think what that does is it highlights the fact that the Treaty settlement process is not wholly consistent with the requirements of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004.

So along with acknowledging all the wonderful things in the part of the bill that relate to Wī Pere, I think it is important that we also recognise that there is a significant change. Nō reira, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu anō ki ngā uri o Wī Pere, oti noa, ki a tātou katoa o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou.

[Therefore, here I am once again acknowledging the descendants of Wī Pere, and, furthermore, to us all of this House, thank you.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Marama Fox, I just want to indicate that I have had indications from both sides of the House that there was slight confusion at that point. Also, it is clear that everyone in the House would like this legislation to be passed today and therefore I will manage the times for members, and it might be that some people get a shorter time than they might otherwise think. Marama Fox—for a 5-minute call.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Mana Whakawā, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki a koutou e hui nei i tēnei wā, hei kawe i tēnei pire ki roto i te ture, koutou e hāpai nei i ngā mahi a Wī Pere i te hītori o te whenua, koutou e mau whenua tonu ana kia whiwhi pūtea, kia mahi i ngā mahi, kia tautoko i ngā uri o Wī Pere, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou! Nā, kia rapu au i te kōrero ka haere tōtika au ki tō koutou website, ānei nā tā koutou e kī nei:

[Mr Assistant Speaker, I would like to acknowledge you assembled here at this point in time for the purposes of enacting this bill into law and supporting the work of Wī Pere in the history of the country, and I acknowledge you who still own land that can accrue funding that will assist the work and support Wī Pere’s descendants. I salute you. Now then, to enable me to hunt for the discourse, I will go directly to your website. Here it is, and this is what you stated:]

“Wiremu Pere and his family were owners of the land in their own right and were owners of undivided interests of various land titles.” And as you know, as happened around the entire country, land leases and the ability to earn money off the land for Māori—all of that was stopped when Governor Grey announced: “You can no longer pay your land leases to Māori landowners.” So Wī Pere whānau found themselves with some accumulated debt and went to the bank to try to alleviate that to ensure that the land would not be sold.

This is what happened: “The bank consented with the following conditions: I. That Wi Pere and his family transfer all their estates to a Trust formed under the provisions of the ‘Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1897’.”—the Native Land Laws Amendment Act; I guess that would have been the ancient iteration of what we are trying to do now with Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill—“II. That the Trustee appointed should be consented to by the Governor and that all restrictions should be removed from the land. III. That Walter George Foster of Wellington be appointed Trustee who should have exclusive control, without the interference by any of the beneficiaries, over the management and disposal of the land.”

Wī Pere fought this tooth and nail. He was not going to allow that to happen, but seeing the land under threat of liability to be lost finally consented, took the loan, consented to the conditions under which that loan was got—that is not a flash word, but under which they got the loan—and then set about trying to earn the money required to pay it off as quick as possible and retain the land for all future generations. And now we come today to this trust, which has now a $65 million asset because it has ensured that it is doing the best for its beneficiaries.

Here is a little something that you need to understand about Māori trusts and Māori land. In a normal company, if you do not pay out dividends sufficient enough to your owners and your beneficiaries, they sell your shares, and the value of your company goes into the ground. That does not happen in Māori land because Māori land owners will never sell their shares. They want to keep that for ever and so a dividend is not often paid out; a dividend is reinvested and reinvested and reinvested in the whenua to ensure we can grow the asset, which is a good thing. But what also happens then is you do get some contention and tension within the whānau who do not believe that the asset is being looked after or distributed fairly. And I think that is fair from the comments that came through from the submitters.

So following the hearings that we had in Gisborne—very proud of the whānau who turned up, well-versed in the issues that they may have had, very proud of the trust who turned up well-versed in the running of the Wī Pere Trust and the efforts that they make on behalf of their beneficiaries—it was obvious that there were some communication things that needed to be settled. But I think of the tikanga that we all uphold to: mā te kōrero ka whakatika [change will occur through discussion].

This bill, I commend it to the House, proud of the whānau for the efforts that you make. You all know what is needed, or the whānau know what is needed in the future, and we watch with interest as you continue to grow the asset for the benefit of all your descendants.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, tēnā koe Te Māngai o Te Whare. I a au e pānui ana i tēnei pire ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ōna wāhanga katoa me te kī atu, tā te mea, ko ngā kaupapa katoa kei roto i tēnei pire i tuku mai i te whenua ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori, hei whakamana i te ōati i waiho mai e te tupuna a Wī Pere ki Te Motu Whānui, hei whakamana ai te whakawhitinga o te rahi pūtea, mai i Whakaata Māori ki Te Mātāwai, hei whakamana ake i te panonitanga o te ingoa ō ōku ake ki roto o Te Rarawa, e Te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa.

Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi kua utaina e Te Minita ki runga i ngā tāngata katoa, ka tīmata mai ki a koe e Te Heamana o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, arā, ko Tutehounuku Korako, mihi atu ana au ki a ia mō āna mahi katoa ki te ārahi i tēnei pire ki roto i ōna nekehanga katoa.

Tuarua, ki ngā kaiwhakahaere o te poraka whenua o Wī Pere, e mihi atu ana au ki a rātau, ia tāima ka tū tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare, ka kite atu ahau ki roto i i ngā tūru ki runga rā, anā ko ngā kanohi o te whānau o Wī Pere, me Te Rōpū Whakahaere i taua poraka whenua, ka mihi atu ahau ki a rātau. Ka mihi anō hoki au ki ngā uri whakatupu, ngā hunga o ēnei rangi, ngā mātātahi o ēnei rangi, me ngā uri whakatupu ka haere ake nei, tā te mea, ko ngā whakaaro katoa kai roto i tēnei pire, mō rātau te take.

Ka huri atu ahau ki te wāhanga o te pire e tīni nei i ngā āhuatanga whakahaere o Te Rōpū Whakahaere o Wī Pere. E Te Māngai o Te Whare mehemea e whakaae ana koe, ka pānui ahau i tētahi kōrero mai i te tuhinga a Apirana Ngata ki tōna hoa pūmau, ki Te Rangi Hīroa i te tau 1932, ko te rā, ko te 17 o Hepetema. Ko tana kōrero ki tōna hoa, e kī pēnei ana:

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was reading this bill I really considered all of its parts and say that because all the matters contained in this bill that released the land, I will remain speaking in the Māori language to empower the oath that the ancestor Wī Pere left behind to the nation at large country to give effect to the transferral of the huge fund from Māori Television to Te Mātāwai, to the name changes that belonged to mine indeed the House within Te Rarawa, salutations to us all!

I endorse the tributes accorded by the Minister upon everyone beginning with the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, namely, Tutehounuku Korako. I pay a tribute to him for all his work to guide this bill through all its stages.

Secondly, to the administrators of the Wī Pere block of land, I acknowledge them; each time this bill take place in the House, I see in the chairs up there, the faces of the Wī Pere family and those of the board of that block of land, I pay a tribute to them. I also acknowledge the descendants, those ones of these days, the younger people, and those to come because all the thoughts contained in this bill the purpose is for them.

I turn to the part of the bill that amends the functions of the Wī Pere board. Mr Assistant Speaker, with your indulgence I will read an excerpt from the writings of Apirana Ngata to his dear friend Te Rangi Hīroa in 1932. The day was 17 September. His words to his colleague went like this:]

“Too much has been made in the past of the historical circumstances which have led to diverse systems of control or slight peculiarities in title. However, since these organisations and policies came into existence, there have resulted, broadly, the following facts: (1) all systems purport to act for the benefit of Māori beneficiaries, and (2) Māori land development is equalling the efforts of the Pākehā pioneers, of which this country never ceases to boast.”

Ko aua kupu nā Apirana Ngata, ko te kaupapa o Apirana Ngata i a ia i roto i tēnei Whare, ko Te Ahu whenua, ko te whakamahi whenua, kia kōkiri ngātahi i ngā wawata me ngā moemoeā o Te Iwi Māori nā roto i te mahi, nā roto i Te Ahu Whenua, nō reira, e hāngai ana ngā kupu a Apirana Ngata me te ōati a Wī Pere ki ngā mahi e mahia nei e tātau i te rā nei. Nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a rātau, nā rātau te whakaaro, i tīmata mai i te kaupapa whakahaere o tēnei poraka whenua, kō atu i te 100 tau kua pahure ake nei. Ki a ia nei na, kai konei tātau i tēnei rangi e whakamana ana i ngā nekehanga e hiahia ana e Te Poari Whakahaere. E kī ana Te Minita ki Te Whare i te rā nei, nā rātau ēnei hiahia, nā rātau te hiahia kia tīni ngā āhuatanga whakahaere e hāpai ana e rātau. Nō reira ka mihi atu ahau ki aua whakaaro nui!

Ēngari, ka kapohia ake ahau i te pepa tāpiri o tōku hoa mahi nei a Meka Whaitiri, te mema Pāremata mō Te Rohe Pōti o Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Ka tautoko ahau i tana pepa hei āhua panoni i tēnei pire, i te wā e haere nei ki roto i Te Whare tā te mea, ka ū tonu ki Te Kōti Whenua Māori, te mana whakahaere i tēnei whenua. Ka tautoko ahau i tēnā ēngari nā runga i te whakaiti, me te hūmārie o tōku hoa mahi nei, anā! Kua whakakorengia e Te Whare taua whakaaro ēngari, ka waiho nā atu hei whakaaroaro mā tātau katoa, i a tātou e hāpai ana i Te Ture Whenua Māori e haere ake nei i tēnei wā.

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki te wāhanga o te pire e hāngai ana ki a Whakaata Māori. I te wā o te komiti ki roto i te Whare nui nei, i pātai atu ahau ki Te Minita, ko te aha te āhua $3 miriona ka kapohia tēnei pire, mai i Te Whakaata Māori, atu ki Te Mātāwai te kaikawe moemoeā mō Te Iwi Māori e pā ana ki Te Reo. Kīhai au i rongo i tetahi whakautu! Kīhai Te Minita i whakautu ki taku pātai tā te mea, kotahi tau i āianei nā, Te Mātāwai ki runga i te mata o te whenua. I haere atu ahau ki ngā hui me te pātai atu, ka aha Te Mātāwai mō tō tātau Reo Māori? Korekau he whakautu ki waku pātai! E pērā ana ki roto i tēnei Whare! Ka waiho na atu tērā whakaaro ki runga i te papa o tō tātou Whare i te rā nei, me te hiahia ā taihoa ake nei tātau ka aro haehae i ngā mahi a Te Mātāwai. Ko reira tātau ka kite mehemea ka whai hua te āhua $3 miriona i roto i tēnei pire i kapohia ake mai i a Whakaata Māori, na, ka whakawhitia atu ki Te Mātāwai. Kāti, ka waiho na atu tērā wāhanga ki reira.

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki te wahanga e pā ana ki ōku ake o Te Rarawa. Ka tīnihia te ingoa o Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa ki tētahi ingoa hou. I taua tāima tonu i pātai atu ahau ki Te Minita mehemea ka huri ngā whakaaro ki te pire e pā ana ki Ngā Hao Ika. Ko reira ka whakaritea i ngā kōrero kei roto i taua pire, he aha nei na te mana o te iwi? I whakamanahia ko ngā iwi ki roto i taua pire! Ko te wāhanga ki roto i Te Māori Purposes Bill i te rā nei, ka tīnihia te ingoa o Te Rarawa! Ka kī atu ahau ki Te Minita, mehemea ka pērā ka āhei ētahi atu iwi ki te tahuri i ngā whakaaro ki tērā atu pire? Panonihia ngā kupu kai roto? Ko reira ka whai mana ngā iwi hou, ngā hapū hou, ki roto i ngā pire o te wā nei. Ka waiho na atu tērā whakaaro ki runga i te papa i te rā nei ēngari ka mihi atu ahau ki Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, i whakaritea nei ki roto i tēnei pire, i tētahi kōnae iti hei tiaki nei i ngā rawa, i ngā pūtea ka whakahokia atu ki Te Rarawa, ā taihoa ake nei.

Nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a rātau me te whakaaro nui kia tiakina pai e rātau, kia tuku pai e rātau i ngā hua me ngā rawa kei a rātau i tēnei wā.

Hei whakakapi ake i taku kōrero i te rā nei, i a au e pānui ana i ngā āhuatanga katoa ki roto i tēnei pire, he aha nei na ōna ōritetanga? Ko te oati ki ā tātau Te Iwi Māori, ko Te Reo Māori kōrerohia! Ka kite atu ahau ki roto i ngā wāhanga o tēnei pire. He aha tētahi atu oati ki roto i tēnei pire? Ka waiho na atu mō Te Iwi Māori tēnā! Ka whakamahia tō whenua mō ngā uri whakatupu e haere ake nei. Ko reira ahau mutu ai tēnei i kōrero ki mua i te aroaro o tō tātau Whare i te rā nei, kāti! Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, otirā, ki a tātau katoa—tū ake Te Reo Māori, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa!

[Those words of Apirana Ngata was his platform while he was in this House was farming, making the land work and jointly promoting aspirations and dreams of the Māori people through work and farming, so Apirana Ngata’s words and Wī Pere’s oath in regards to the work done by us today are relevant. Therefore, accolades to them whose idea it was to initiate the governance plan of this block of land more than 100 years ago.

At this very moment we are here on this day effecting movements required by the board of trustees. The Minister has said to the House today these aspirations belong to them, they wanted to change aspects of governance supportive of them. Therefore I commend them for those important thoughts.

But I am grabbed by the amendment of my fellow work colleague, Meka Whaitiri, the representative in Parliament for the electorate of Te Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I endorse her paper as a means of amending this bill somewhat during the stages it goes through the House because it remains committed to the Māori Land Court the entity that administers this land. I support that but upon the humility and unassuming manner of this work colleague of mine, but there you are. The House has abolished that idea but has left it there for us all to mull over as we support the forthcoming land Act at this time.

I turn to the part of the bill relating to Māori Television. During the Committee stage in this great House I asked the Minister which part of what appeared to be $3 million was snatched up from Māori Television for Te Mātāwai the dream-bearer of the Māori people in regards to the Māori language. I did no hear any response at all. The Minister did not reply to my query because Te Mātāwai has been in existence upon the earth for only a year. I went along to the meetings and asked: what will Te Mātāwai do for our Māori language? There was no response at all to my questions. The situation is similar in this House.

I leave that thought upon the floor of our House today with the desire that in due course we will critically analyse the operations of Te Mātāwai. It is at there at that point that we will see whether the somewhat $3 million gains benefits in this bill that was snatched up from Māori Television and transferred to Te Mātāwai. Enough, I will leave that part there.

I turn now to the part that relates to me in particular, to us of Te Rarawa. The name Te Rūnanga of Te Rarawa was changed to a new one. At that very moment I asked the Minister whether thoughts had turned to the bill regarding fisheries. It was there that an arrangement was made as a consequence of the commentary in that bill as to what exactly was the status of the tribe. The tribes were enacted in that bill. The name of Te Rarawa contained in the part of the Māori Purposes today was changed.

Mine to the Minister: if that occurs, will other tribes be able to overturn the thoughts to another bill? Change the words therein? And as a result new tribes and subtribes have the mandate in current bills? I leave that thought upon the floor today but I do acknowledge Te Rūnanga of Te Rarawa who arranged one tiny file in this bill to look after the resources and finances that will be returned to Te Rarawa in due course. So a huge tribute to them and the magnificent thought that they protect the assets and resources well that they hold currently.

So to conclude my speech today, as I was reading all aspects contained in this bill—what, then, are its similarities? Is it the pledge to us the Māori people to speak the Māori language I see that in the parts of this bill? What other pledge is there in this bill? That is left for the Māori people. Make your land work for descendants to come. There, then, is where I end this contribution before this House of ours today. Enough—my thanks to you and indeed to us all. Rise up, Māori language. Acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I cannot possibly hope to display the mastery of Te Reo that the member who has just resumed his seat, Peeni Henare, has done, but I do want to commend this Māori Purposes Bill fulsomely to the House. It is an excellent bill, sponsored by a very fine Minister, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. It has been through the Māori Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of a very fine chair, the honourable member Tutehounuku Korako.

I want to pay tribute to the honourable Wī Pere, a five-term member of this House and a great son of Poverty Bay and his area. He was a man who took the seat from James Carroll and was succeeded in it by Sir Apirana Ngata. So he has a place in the pantheon of the great Māori leaders of this country. I want to acknowledge Wī Pere’s descendants and those who have been so instrumental in making sure this is a successful trust worth more than $60 million. The modernisation, including such things as introducing teleconferencing for board meetings, is very sensible. It is an excellent bill, and it is a wonderful thing that it has achieved such widespread support in this House. I commend it.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Given the progress that the House has made, I seek leave for the House to rise now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is anyone churlish enough to oppose that? No.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.