Wednesday, 5 July 2017

WEDNESDAY, 5 JULY 2017

WEDNESDAY, 5 JULY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing Affordability and Availability—Hutt Valley Development

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Social Housing given that the Hutt housing development announced yesterday would include as few as 60 affordable homes out of the 330 to be built?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, I do have confidence in our outstanding Minister for Social Housing. The member, if he looked at the details of the announcement, would see that Housing New Zealand will build at least 330 houses, of which 130 will be social houses and 60 will be designated as affordable. But, of course, what matters in the Hutt Valley is the overall supply of housing, to ensure that in the long run housing is affordable. The other thing that matters is that we now have the opportunity to rebuild the State housing stock in the Hutt Valley and clean up the mess left by the last Labour Government.

Andrew Little: Why will up to 140 of the houses built in the Hutt development not be affordable, by the Government’s own definition, given that the biggest crisis facing New Zealand is the lack of affordable housing?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The scheme here is that the Government rebuilds the social housing stock. Because the land has been so inefficiently used, we can build a lot more houses on the same land, and they will be sold into the Hutt Valley market. Of course they will be affordable houses, because we expect people will buy them, and they will buy them at the market price. That will add to the supply of housing and help everybody.

Andrew Little: Why does the Government even bother defining affordability when, according to Nick Smith, affordability is “in the eye of the beholder”, even if that beholder is an overseas speculator?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not design our policy around Chinese-sounding names, like the Labour Party does. People buy houses right across the price range every day. The best thing the Government can do is to utilise our land, which has been historically used quite inefficiently, under the old State housing model to expand the supply of housing, in addition to social housing, and that is what we are doing.

Jami-Lee Ross: How will the housing development announced by the Minister help the local housing stock in the Hutt Valley?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are setting out on what will take 10 or 15 years of rebuilding many, several thousand houses in the Hutt Valley. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of the list member for Hutt South, Chris Bishop, for his relentless advocacy, not just for the social housing tenants but for affordable housing in the Hutt Valley.

Andrew Little: Is it correct that investors and speculators will be able to buy those 140 houses that will, according to his own Government, be out of reach for first-home buyers?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unlike the Labour Party, we do not have a proscribed list of evil people who are unable to buy houses. We do not mind if they have Chinese-sounding names. We do not mind if they are people who are investing in a second house because that is their retirement savings, as thousands of Kiwis, including members of the Opposition, have done. We just focus on expanding the supply of housing so that we can avoid the excessive housing cycles and continue to improve housing affordability.

Jami-Lee Ross: For what other reasons does he have confidence in the Minister for Social Housing?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because of her leadership of the Government’s Crown building project, which will replace 8,300—

Phil Twyford: How many houses have been built?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —no, no, the member should listen—old houses of the wrong size in Auckland State housing stock with 34,000 brand new houses over 10 years. This plan has the funding in place and is a long-term plan to deliver those houses. The Minister has done a great job.

Andrew Little: Why does his plan for housing involve taking public land and building unaffordable houses that will be sold to speculators?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is better than the Labour Party’s plan, which is to oppose all developments, such as Point England and the Three Kings Quarry. I mean, at least we are getting out and building something. But, as the member will understand, we are building a mixture of social houses, lower-cost houses that lower-income people can afford, and market-priced houses, which help us pay for the whole lot. It is a very sensible, balanced policy. Over the next 10 years we will rebuild the stock in the Hutt Valley, but if people vote for the Labour Party, nothing will happen.

Andrew Little: Talking about not doing development, given that the Hutt Valley land has been empty for 5 years, after his Government tore down the State houses that were previously occupying it, why are we mysteriously hearing about this plan for 60 affordable homes only 2½ months from a general election?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will recall that we have been talking about making changes in the housing system for a number of years. Those are now coming to fruition, and we are going to be able, for the next 10 or 15 years, to rebuild the State housing stock. We are going to use paid New Zealand labour, unlike the Labour Party, which is going to use free foreign workers to campaign for it.

Andrew Little: How about this for a plan: fix the crisis by building affordable houses for first-home buyers and by building State houses for people who actually need them, rather than yet again doing what the National Government does, which is create opportunities for speculators—and after 9 years, is it not time to look after first-home buyers, not speculators?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Thousands of first-home buyers are using the HomeStart programme. In fact, there is enough funding for it for, I think, 90,000 first-home buyers to take advantage of getting their first entry into housing. But to sell that plan in the election we are not going to use unpaid foreign workers in poor accommodation to knock on doors to persuade people.

Transport, Auckland—Rail to Airport and Government Priorities

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): My question is to the Minister of Transport—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have a little less interjection. I have called question No. 2.

2. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree that light rail to Auckland Airport should be fast-tracked for completion in 2021; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Well, the Government is fast-tracking protection of this sole-purpose route so that we can get on with construction of the corridor. It is difficult to say a time frame because it is an involved process. It does involve design and consenting. It involves property procurement, and then that is before you get on to building. But I am absolutely open to suggestions, and I am intrigued to understand how the Greens think it could be done, especially given that they have opposed the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform that is required for these sorts of projects, oppose and hate the board of inquiry process, and, in fact, want consultation and process up the wazoo, which makes these sorts of projects much harder to do in that kind of time frame.

Julie Anne Genter: Why is he not more ambitious and committed about fast-tracking our airport rail when Vancouver was able to deliver rail to its airport across a similar distance at similar cost in less than 4 years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government is incredibly ambitious for Auckland and has a series of probably the biggest projects going on at the moment, whether it is the East-West Link or whether it is the City Rail Link (CRL). What we do not want to do, though, is slow things down. It is interesting to know that what the Greens are proposing will take 43 minutes when, thanks to the Waterview tunnel, already you can do it significantly faster than that.

Julie Anne Genter: With all the upheaval in central Auckland from the City Rail Link, does it not make sense to start building light rail on Queen Street at the same time, rather than create the same disruption several years later?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not entirely sure what she is saying. We are doing the projects that make a difference. We have got an ambitious pipeline of projects that I have already been through, whether it is CRL, whether it is the recently completed Waterview tunnel, which means things are much faster than the Greens seem to want for Auckland, whether it is the East-West Link—we have got an ambitious pipeline of projects that are making a difference.

Julie Anne Genter: Speaking of the CRL, does the Minister remember that it took his National Government 6 years to commit to that project, and is it really going to take National another 6 years to realise airport rail should have started in 2017?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is because we have got a very strong economy and we have got our books in order that, actually, we are able to do these sorts of projects. We have put in—what is it—somewhere between $1.7 billion and $1.8 billion from the Government into this unprecedented public transport project. It is going to make things much faster in Auckland—unlike the sorts of plans the Green Party have, where they actually want a slow train to the airport, which would be slower on her projections than actually what we can do right now through the Waterview tunnel.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that back in 2015—yes, 2 years ago—both the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport committed to airport rail but progress has been delayed for 2 years because he instructed them to go back and look at bus alternatives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I do not accept the way that has been said. What they did was they got together, they collaborated on this, and they came up with a plan that involves the route protection, and that then involves mass transit public transport on that route. One of the issues is when the demand is required, but, as I say, we are absolutely open to suggestions. What we do need to do, if we do something in the time frame that the Green Party is talking about, is RMA reform and having better consultation that does not take the sort of time that the Green Party would want, so that we can get on and do some of these things.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that Auckland Transport officials say that his airport bus solution, the one that he brought out to delay progress on airport rail, has “inherent risks, including potentially avoidable costs and disruption from implementing solutions that do not have sufficient long-term capacity.”

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not responsible for Auckland Transport, but what I do know is that we have got an incredibly ambitious programme—we are doing the CRL, we are doing many other projects. What we do not want to do is slow things down from where they are now, when people can get through the Waterview tunnel some—what—20 minutes faster than they could just a couple of weeks ago, with the sorts of things that the Green Party is talking about.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this confidential Auckland Transport briefing that raises serious concerns about the viability of the Minister’s airport bus idea.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular briefing. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] Order! I am putting the leave; it is over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that there is no technical or engineering barrier to delivering airport rail by 2021—there is just a lack of political will from his National Government?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not a technical expert; I cannot confirm those sorts of things. But what I can confirm is that we are already fast-tracking these things. We are open to suggestions about how to go faster. But let me say that all the things the Green Party has opposed, whether it is RMA reform, whether it is board of inquiry processes, whether it is trying to put more and more consultation processes on—it just slows things down. They want to slow things down. We are the ones trying to speed things up for Auckland.

Housing—Building Consents, Supply, and Affordability

3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on trends in housing supply?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand have just released its building consents for the month of May. The seasonally adjusted number of new homes consented rose 7 percent in the month, although some of that was a catch-up from April. In the year ended May 2017, 30,645 new homes were consented nationally. That is up 8 percent from a year ago. In Auckland alone, there were 10,379 new building consents in the last 12 months. There is, of course, more progress ahead of us, including through the Crown building programme, but we are seeing the benefits of this Government’s consistent actions to promote new housing developments and increase supply.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does the current increase in building consents compare with long-term trends?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have had to overcome a structural downturn in residential construction that began in 2003 to 2004. This hole in New Zealand’s housing supply was evident well before the effects of the global financial crisis and the collapse of finance companies. New Zealand’s housing market has been recovering since, but the good news is that the 2,039 stand-alone houses consented in May was the highest monthly number since June 2004. Consents overall are now more than double the level of the 2011 low point and nearly back to the mid-2016 peak. More developments, of course, continue to be worked on, including the $1.2 billion Three Kings development, which will provide up to 1,500 additional homes in Auckland close to the city, on well-established transport links.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is this increasing supply of residential dwellings being delivered?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand’s construction sector is performing well. In fact, it is the largest it has ever been, having grown 9.3 percent in the year to March 2017. The construction sector’s share of GDP has increased steadily, from 5.1 percent in 2012 to 6 percent currently. The sector is also employing its largest number of people, at 245,000, which is more than ever before, despite the peak of the Christchurch rebuild now being over.

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that the output of homes has just returned to the level of 2004?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think that is what I actually said in answer to the first question. Of course, 2004 was the previous highest level of construction activity.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does growth in New Zealand’s housing supply compare with Australia’s?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, our cousins across the Ditch are experiencing a tough patch at the moment. Dwelling approvals in Australia came in weaker than expected, with a 5.6 percent fall in May, resulting in total approvals for the year being down nearly 20 percent. All major states are seeing total dwelling approvals down from a year ago. New Zealand is fortunate to be in a much stronger position. Our consistent economic plan is giving homebuyers, developers, banks, and construction companies the confidence to invest and increase housing supply in this country, and the relative position of our two construction industries means there will probably be more workers coming back across the Tasman to work on New Zealand housing.

David Seymour: Does Australia have an affordable housing market?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That would be a question for the Australians, but what I can tell the member is that the New Zealand housing market is much more robust in terms of supply, and that is what we need. After the period from 2004 to 2009, when there was a big decline in construction, now we are having a big increase in construction, which is doing a tremendous job of filling in the supply gap.

David Seymour: Considering Australia has the second-least affordable market in the English-speaking world after New Zealand, why are we comparing ourselves with them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am not sure that I could agree with the member in his characterisation of the New Zealand housing market, because, actually, if you have a look at it, the New Zealand housing market is more affordable in terms of the cost of servicing mortgages and so on, but we can talk about that. But in terms of the comparison with Australia, the comparison I am making is the strength of the New Zealand construction market compared with that in Australia.

Phil Twyford: Why do he and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Building and Construction always blame Auckland Council for the restrictive planning system that makes urban land so expensive when at any time in the last 9 years the Government could have published a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act to prohibit the use of an urban growth boundary?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me explain to the member what happened. In 2003-04 there was a law change that allowed the regional councils—

Phil Twyford: In the last 9 years.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me take you through it—let me take you through it. The regional councils’ metropolitan urban limit was put in place as being superior to the local councils plan. That caused a massive decline in housing construction in Auckland, to the point where in 2009 there were only just over 2,000 houses a year being built in our biggest city. Since that time, the construction sector has grown dramatically, and now we have nearly 11,000 houses being built in our largest city. But we have had to recover from the terrible situation that was left from that change in 2004.

Phil Twyford: Surely he does not believe the spin of his Minister for Building and Construction that the special housing areas and the Auckland Unitary Plan are the same thing as abolishing the urban growth boundary, given that the unitary plan still has an urban growth boundary and Auckland continues to have some of the most expensive urban land in the world?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is missing the point. The problem was that the previous Government put in place—

Phil Twyford: You’ve had 9 years.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —this requirement. I am trying to explain it to you, Phil. From 2004 down to 2009 there was a massive decline in construction, and from 2011 to 2017 there has been a massive increase in construction. Spot the difference between those two things. The Labour Government stalled the housing market in Auckland; the National Government is growing the housing market in Auckland.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

4. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult?

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

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): As I advised the member yesterday in response to the same question, I have no ministerial responsibility for that issue.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This issue has been canvassed quite heavily over the last couple of weeks. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 171/2, which does begin by saying: “Ministers can be questioned only on matters for which they have [ministerial] responsibility.” However, it also says: “If they have made statements that impinge on those responsibilities, they can be questioned on them, regardless of the capacity in which the statements are made.”

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order is, apart from reading out a particular Speaker’s ruling. We have traversed this issue a lot over the last couple of weeks. It is now for the Prime Minister to decide where prime ministerial responsibility lies. Statements have been made as the member of Parliament, as the leader of the caucus, as the leader of the National Party, and, potentially, as the Prime Minister. It has been both in the House and outside, so I am going to leave it for the Prime Minister to make his call as to whether he is answering in a prime ministerial capacity.

Ron Mark: If he said yesterday “I agree that is what the Cabinet Manual says.” over Ministers having ministerial responsibility in a personal capacity 24/7, how could Mr Joyce, when answering for him, possibly say “I doubt that any member would have been listening to that [tape] in their ministerial capacity.”?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister—in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is trying to make it all sound complicated, but it is not. I simply have no ministerial responsibility, and that was reflected in the answer that Steven Joyce gave on my behalf.

Ron Mark: If he said yesterday “I agree that is what the Cabinet Manual says.”, is he aware of any Minister, current or former, being approached by police in relation to the recordings allegedly made by Mr Barclay?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because this matter is subject to police investigation, I have no comment or ability to influence whether the police approach anyone, or whether they would tell me that they had. In fact, they almost certainly should not.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without wanting to go over the same ground, I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 175/1—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need the member to draw my attention to that Speaker’s ruling. We are covering the same ground. I told him earlier it is for the Prime Minister—he is the only one who knows in what capacity he has made various comments.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Just a minute—I just need to deal with something. If the member is attempting now to relitigate the ground that I am just covering, I will take a very dim view of it, and possibly be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

Ron Mark: No, not at all. It is in relation to that answer the Prime Minister gave, and I am seeking your clarification. Is the Prime Minister by that answer saying he is not responsible for his Ministers?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think the Prime Minister is saying that at all. The Prime Minister addressed the question that was asked. It was a very convoluted question; the Prime Minister addressed it.

Ron Mark: Are he and his Ministers aware that covering up an illegal act in the hope that it would go away could make him and other Ministers an accessory after the fact to an offence, a party to the commission of an offence, and, potentially, open to a charge of perverting the course of justice?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member cannot make that sort of imputation about a member in the House.

Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance. On this occasion, the member has not made an allegation; he has simply asked the Prime Minister to address the question. The question, in my mind, is in order and it will be addressed. The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I reject the member’s assertions, and I think any matters related to potential offences are, really, matters for the police, not for the House.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you correctly pointed out, I did not make an assertion. I asked him whether he is aware of the potential for those Ministers to have broken the law.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister then addressed that question. The question has been addressed—not to the satisfaction of the member, but I doubt it was ever going to be addressed to the satisfaction of the member. Does the member wish to have a further supplementary?

Christchurch Anchor Projects—Canterbury Earthquake Learn, Prepare, Act Symposium Cancellation

5. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she stand by her statement that a reason for cancelling the Canterbury Earthquake Learn, Prepare, Act Symposium was that “The Government was, quite rightly, focused on supporting Kaikōura and surrounding areas following the November quake”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Nowhere in that statement does it say that the Kaikōura earthquake was a reason for cancelling the symposium, and I have never made that claim. The member, I know, may not read all my statements with such fine detail, but if she did she would have seen a press release on November 2016 in which the Government stated: “This decision to delay the symposium was made prior to the November 14 earthquake but I believe this recent event reinforces the reasoning behind it.” I still believe that.

Dr Megan Woods: In the article in the Press this week, why did the Minister even mention the Kaikōura earthquakes as a reason as to why the symposium was cancelled, given that official documents show that her predecessor signed off on the cancellation on 8 November, 6 days before the Kaikōura earthquakes—why was it even mentioned?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I mentioned the Kaikōura earthquakes because although the symposium had already been cancelled, it just showed what a good decision it was, because now we can put all the information of things that we have learned in Kaikōura in the ongoing learning and legacy information.

Dr Megan Woods: How many anchor projects does the Crown have responsibility for, and how many have been completed as of today?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I will tell you all about it when we have our symposium next year.

Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight—[Interruption]

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

Dr Megan Woods: How many anchor projects does the Crown have responsibility for, and how many have been completed as of today?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The anchor projects that are happening in Christchurch are progressing well. The Crown has some responsibility for some of them, but not all of them—for example, the oval was not the Crown’s responsibility, but that is completed. The bus exchange was the Crown’s responsibility, and that is completed. The Avon-Ōtākaro corridor is partially completed. The Margaret Mahy Family Playground is completed. The convention centre is on track, as announced recently, and the Metro Sports Facility is under way. The only anchor project that is not on the way at this stage is the multi-use stadium, which is the responsibility of the city council.

Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order?

Dr Megan Woods: It is a point of order. That was a very straight question. It was a very long answer, but I asked for two numbers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. The member cannot design the answer for a Minister; it is the Minister’s responsibility, and I thought the Minister gave a very fulsome answer to the question that was asked.

Dr Megan Woods: How many anchor projects does the Crown have responsibility for, and how many have been completed to date?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Would you like me to repeat my past answer, which gives the detail of the anchor projects—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not blame the Minister for resuming her seat. She went to answer the question; the level of interjection was just unacceptably loud.

Dr Megan Woods: Is the real reason the National Government cancelled the symposium not because it was too embarrassed, in an election year, to front up to the people of Christchurch over its underwhelming lack of progress on the anchor projects? And, for the record, it is 10—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Absolutely not. What we were concerned about was whether we could effectively reflect the whole process of recovery, rebuild, and regeneration. There has been some impressive work done in Christchurch, and some of the lessons we need to learn. It is my belief, also, that the symposium should cover the new and innovative locally led governance structure about Regenerate Christchurch, which is of interest both nationally and internationally.

Building Standards—Earthquake Safety and New Law

6. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What steps has the Government taken to support councils in implementing the new law taking effect this week requiring upgrades of earthquake-prone buildings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): The major change with the new law is a nationally consistent approach to dealing with earthquake-prone buildings, rather than letting each council determine its own policy. Last week, Cabinet passed detailed regulations to help councils identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings and adopted the engineering guidelines to support more consistent assessments. This comprehensive package of measures puts New Zealand at the forefront of countries managing seismic risk and, alongside the changes to the Earthquake Commission, improved new-build standards, and the much improved civil defence and emergency system changes, ensures New Zealand is better able to manage these earthquake risks in future.

Brett Hudson: How does the new law address the significant variation in risk from earthquakes across New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The seismic risk is greatest in those parts of New Zealand that are straddling the Pacific and Australasian plates, from Greymouth in the south-west, through Wellington, and to Gisborne in the north-east. The existing building code requires buildings in those areas to be, effectively, three times as strong as those in low-risk areas like Dunedin and Auckland. But the new law also graduates the timetable for the assessments and the upgrades of the earthquake-prone buildings. High-risk areas must be assessed within 5 years and upgraded within 15, medium-risk areas have 10 years for assessment and 25 years to be upgraded, and in those low-risk areas, it is 15 years and 35 years. The policy also, rightly, prioritises schools, hospitals, and emergency buildings, requiring these to be assessed and upgraded in half of that time.

Waste Management—Waste Reduction Initiatives and Funding

7. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Is he satisfied the Government is doing enough to reduce waste, given that the amount of waste going to landfill has increased from 2.5 million tons in 2009 to nearly 3.3 million tons in 2016?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes. In 2009 this Government introduced the waste disposal levy to reduce waste, and it has worked well so far. New Zealanders have choice, and we make decisions every day about what we purchase, what packaging we consume, and what we do with the waste. I encourage all New Zealanders to take up the opportunities that already exist to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Denise Roche: Given that an independent review of the waste levy, released on Monday, concludes that an extension and increase to the levy would reduce waste to landfill, create about 9,000 jobs, and create an economic benefit of around $500 million per year, why has his own review suggested that no action be taken?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I welcome the Waste Management Institute New Zealand (WasteMINZ) report that the member refers to. It is part of a much wider conversation that we need to have nationwide about what we need to do with waste in the world that we live in, where there is increasing consumerism and convenience. That report that the member refers to sets out a range of options for the future of waste disposal levies, and it complements the review that I myself released on Monday. The three recommendations from the review are focused on addressing these very issues. There are several scenarios suggested in the WasteMINZ report that the member refers to, and it is no surprise to me that the Greens are going to focus on the most extreme of those.

Denise Roche: Supplementary?

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Dr Megan Woods.

Denise Roche: Ah, thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, Dr—Denise Roche.

Denise Roche: Has he considered introducing mandatory product stewardship schemes, like refunds on drink containers, a charge on single-use plastic bags, or advanced disposal fees for tyres, which actually reduce landfill waste, create jobs, and cover the costs of recycling?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: On this side of the House we are not the party of placards and protest. We take a very pragmatic and practical view towards environmental protection and enhancement, and, no, we are not contemplating a plastic bag tax. What I am doing is meeting with stakeholders in the sector, mayors, and officials regarding the issue of plastic bags and the disposal of them.

Denise Roche: If the Government is serious about tackling waste, why has Budget 2017 projected a nearly 50 percent increase in the Waste Minimisation Fund, which corresponds to a 50 percent increase in waste to landfill?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Notwithstanding the member’s political question, I think that, actually, what we do want to be talking about is the next big conversation in terms of waste. That is going to be around manufacturers, retailers, and producers of products actually having a complete, full life-cycle approach to their products. In a circular economy, it is not just about the convenience of their packaging but the understanding of what the impacts are—

Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask a question about the Budget; it has not been answered.

Mr SPEAKER: No, but you included the words “If the Government is serious about dealing with the issue of waste …”, so it was being addressed by the Minister.

Canterbury District Health Board—Mental Health Services and Funding

8. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his Director-General’s claim that Canterbury District Health Board’s request in March for urgent additional mental health funding of $7.2 million to address increasing demand was “inappropriate”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, and it is important that the member understands the wider context here. It is not appropriate for any district health board (DHB) to use the annual plan process to bid for more funding on top of the Budget allocation. It is also worth noting that the State Services Commissioner, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet also agreed with the director-general’s position, following further requests made by the Canterbury District Health Board. Budget 2017 increased the funding to the Canterbury DHB by $73 million, to a record $1.499 billion for 2017-18, an increase of nearly $400 million over the last 9 years.

Dr David Clark: Why did Ministry of Health director of critical projects manager, Michael Hundleby, say that there was no funding allocated for ad hoc requests, when the Minister himself announced $20 million ad hoc for mental health pressures in March the year before, outside of normal Budget processes?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because that was a totally exceptional circumstance, but the director of critical projects does not have a slush bucket of funds just to dole out every time. So, basically, what Chai Chuah has said is absolutely correct: you cannot use the annual planning process to try to screw more money out, following the Budget process.

Dr David Clark: In light of his ministry’s view that additional funding is inappropriate, does he deny the following statistics from the Canterbury District Health Board’s minutes last month: that since the earthquake there has been a 36 percent increase in adult community mental health service presentations, a 73 percent increase in child and youth mental health presentations, a 41 percent increase in rural mental health presentations, and a 72 percent increase in emergency department mental health presentations?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, and that is exactly why the Government has put in an extra $106 million to help with the additional costs of recovery since the 2010 earthquakes. That includes an extra $20 million for the next 3 years, which we announced in March 2016 as part of a package to boost initiatives for mental health services in Canterbury. Also, the DHB is going to spend $160 million on mental health services this year. That is an increase of $30 million on 9 years ago. I can take you now through the broader points around that $20 million: that is part of a package that is going to boost services in the community; it was consulted with the community workers. There are an extra 27 fulltime-equivalents in primary care and more community-based health workers. There is also a $1 million per year partnering with Christchurch City Council and Lianne Dalziel—I know you guys are missing her, actually—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just carry on with the answer.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —to allocate to the Christchurch mayoral fund, and, on top of that, the Ministry of Health is extending the All Right? campaign for a further 3 years. So, actually, we have been listening to Canterbury on mental health. We have consulted with people who know what they are talking about, and we have put in a hell of a lot more money.

Dr David Clark: Was any of the $2.7 million that Canterbury DHB had to give back, as a result of his Government’s Budget blunder, for the district health board this year originally planned for mental health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually, the member is being very misleading. It did not have to give back any money at all. The total allocation across DHBs was exactly the same. This year there will be an extra $160 million spent on mental health, waiting times are coming down, there are more psychiatrists, more mental health nurses, and an increase in services. So I do not know why the member has wasted his question No. 8—I know he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We do not need to go there.

Dr David Clark: I am not going to let that arrogant response lie. Will he guarantee that the youth in-patient, mother and babies, and eating disorder mental health services, currently operating from the Princess Margaret Hospital site, will be included in the new build plan for the Hillmorton site?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, we are just working through the planning of future services now, but what I can guarantee is that those services will continue to be provided, and that is the main point.

Dr David Clark: In light of his ministry’s response to Canterbury DHB that it should prioritise funding if additional mental health services are needed, which front-line services does he think Canterbury should cut instead?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No one is asking anyone to cut front-line services; the member should stop misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last part is completely unnecessary and will be withdrawn.

Fuel Market—Financial Performance Study Results

9. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has she made about the Fuel Market Financial Performance Study?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yesterday I released a study into New Zealand’s retail fuel market. The report takes us a big step forward in our understanding of fuel margins. It confirms that the market has features that may not be consistent with a workably competitive market and that retail fuel margins have increased significantly over the last 5 years, while fuel margins for aviation and commercial road users have been flat or falling. It also shows that higher petrol prices in the South Island and Wellington are not explained by higher costs in those areas. The report shows that fuel margins have steadily increased from 9.1c per litre at the start of 2010 to 29.5c per litre in May 2017.

Sarah Dowie: Why did she call for the Fuel Market Financial Performance Study?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I called for the study in February after hearing concerns about petrol prices from the public and also Mr Stuart Nash, and after asking the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for advice on fuel margins.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are you trying to see him deselected?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ha! I wanted to know that fuel prices were reasonable and that motorists were getting a fair deal, and I was concerned that this might not be the case. The report demonstrates that we were right to be concerned. It shows that, for the last quarter of 2016, New Zealand’s pre-tax fuel price was the highest in the OECD. Each cent in margins represents $30 million in extra costs for consumers annually. This is really big. Margin increases over the last 5 years can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sarah Dowie: What are the next steps in the process?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an excellent question. I have asked fuel companies to provide a formal response to the study by the end of September. My officials will then assess the recommendations of the study, alongside the response from the fuel companies, and report back to me by November. In addition, of course, on the advice of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Jacqui Dean, Cabinet has agreed to support an amendment to the Commerce Act to give them information-gathering powers, which can be used at the discretion of Cabinet, to properly examine competition in markets just such as this.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Prime Minister: Why did he tell the House on 21 June with regard to the Todd Barclay matter, “I do not know what the dispute was or how it was settled”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Because I was not a party to the employment dispute or the settlement. The extent of my involvement was as the former MP for Clutha-Southland. I did not then, or now, have any ministerial responsibility for this matter.

Chris Hipkins: Why did he tell the House that he did not know the dispute had been settled, when his own text messages reveal that he knew Glenys Dickson had received a settlement payment “larger than normal, because of the privacy breach.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just repeat my answer to the previous question. I was not a party to the employment dispute. I was the former MP for Clutha-Southland, but I had no ministerial responsibility for the matter.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister seriously arguing that if he is not a party to a dispute, he does not have an obligation to tell the truth about what he knows about it?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is bordering on going to create disorder. I will listen again because I want to give the member a fair go, but if he is in any way accusing any other member of—well, I will listen very carefully to the question.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister seriously indicating that if he is not directly a party to a dispute, he does not have an obligation to tell the truth about what he knows about it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of that matter, I met all my obligations to give relevant information to the people who needed to know it, including the New Zealand Police as part of its 10-month investigation.

Chris Hipkins: Why did he tell the House that he did not know what the dispute was about, when, over a year earlier, he had been interviewed by the police about the matter and told them that the allegations Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson’s conversations were a reason for her leaving the position?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, I have no ministerial responsibility for the matter, then or now. The statements I made to the police have all been released, and the member is as familiar with them as anyone else is.

Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the only interpretation that can be placed on his refusal to get to the truth of the Barclay conduct is that he is participating in a cover-up of Mr Barclay’s improper, and possibly unlawful, activities; if so, what does that say about the credibility of his Government?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has alleged that the Prime Minister has participated in a cover-up. In my submission, he simply cannot make that allegation in relation to another member. He said that that is the only interpretation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened very carefully, and that was not the question. Those words were certainly used, but it was not a representation of that at all. The Prime Minister can answer the question.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said to the member, I have no ministerial responsibility. It is hardly a cover-up when statements are made to the police in relation to the matters the member is raising.

Budget 2017—Northland Schools and Kura Capacity

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made following Budget 2017 in regards to increasing capacity at Northland schools and kura?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): As part of our continued commitment to the Northland region, the Hon Nikki Kaye and I were pleased to announce that Budget 2017 will provide $5.5 million for 11 new and replacement classrooms at three schools and kura in the region. These new classrooms will accommodate an additional 140 student places and will upgrade existing school infrastructure. This Government believes in the potential of Northland’s young people. These new classrooms will enable these schools and kura to help their tamariki to reach their potential.

Dr Shane Reti: How will local schools and kura benefit from this investment?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I am very pleased to inform the excellent and hard-working member for Whangarei that two schools in his electorate are set to benefit from this investment. Ruakākā School will see three new classrooms built, and Ngunguru School will receive two new and four replacement classrooms. I also had the privilege of visiting Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe yesterday to announce that we will provide it with two new classrooms. That is a kura that is thriving under strong leadership and is seeing a rapid growth in its roll, and, I have to say, yesterday the tamariki were stunningly talented, very appreciative, and their welcome was spine-tingling.

Tracey Martin: What actions has he taken to alleviate the overcrowding at Kaipara College in Helensville, which is currently running at 135 percent?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I do not have that specific information available to me, but I can tell that member that this Government has already invested $5 billion in school infrastructure since it came to office, plus there is more than $4 billion coming in the next 4 years. The ministry is working with schools to ensure that a long-term procedure is implemented, and I can assure the member that everything is being done in a decent and proper fashion, in the best interests of those schools and their children.

Environment—Waste Management and Pest Control

12. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, and I particularly stand by my statement that New Zealand First voted for the emissions trading scheme legislation and the addition of joint-iwi management agreements through the Resource Management Act, but now pretends that it opposed both these environmental laws.

Denis O’Rourke: Why did he announce a grant of $3.8 million out of the Waste Minimisation Fund to Waste Management NZ for a nationwide tyre collection network when that company’s last recorded profit after tax was $30 million and when there has been no request for proposals to allow Kiwi companies to propose solutions for the disposal of tyres?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bid was awarded to Waste Management NZ after a contestable process in which it proved that it is possible to be both profitable and to do good environmental things. It has a network of 70 depots across New Zealand and 800 trucks. It makes great sense. I am very proud that this Government is taking action against waste tyres, which cause problems with leachates with the risk of burning, for which local government has long asked for a solution, which this Government has provided.

Denis O’Rourke: In making his decision to subsidise Waste Management, was he concerned that Beijing Capital Group, the owner of Waste Management NZ, has failed its obligation to lodge financial statements with the Companies Office since 3 January 2014; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: And again, in so far as there may be ministerial responsibility, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not my concern whether Waste Management might have shareholders with Chinese-sounding names. I am not concerned that it might be profitable. What I am concerned about is whether it put up the best proposal to the independent panel for addressing the longstanding tyre problem and the answer to that was, yes, it did and both the combination of that bid and the other nine selected bids finds a solution for the 5 million waste tyres that we have each year.

Denis O’Rourke: What confidence can taxpayers have anyway in Beijing Capital Group—Waste Management’s owner—when Moody’s has recently downgraded its creditworthiness to just one step above junk bonds?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be ministerial responsibility, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Waste Management NZ is one of New Zealand’s largest waste companies and I actually do not mind whether its investors happen to have Chinese-sounding names. What I do care about is actually that we both collect, shred, and properly dispose of New Zealand’s 5 million waste tyres each year, and in that respect Waste Management’s bid was the best bid that the Ministry for the Environment assessed.

Richard Prosser: Does he stand by his statement in response to the court filing of the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary proceedings that “The national pest control regulations for the use of 1080 and brodifacoum were introduced on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” when in fact the parliamentary commissioner was very clear that she supported only 1080 and not brodifacoum, on pages 58 and 59 of her report, stating the “By-kill of native species is a significant risk from the use of … anticoagulants.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended that it was more sensible to have one set of pest control regulations for New Zealand rather than us having 86 different rules with different councils. As a consequence, this Government adopted those national pest control regulations, they were consulted on, three-quarters of the people who submitted supported them, including the inclusion of brodifacoum, and in my view if we are serious about creating sanctuaries and meeting my colleague Maggie Barry’s ambitious plans for predator-free New Zealand by 2050, then those poisons are required.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that my question was specifically why the Minister referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment endorsing the use of brodifacoum when she specifically did not.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is spending a lot of time studying Speakers’ rulings so I would be grateful if he would consider the ones that refer to the generality of the primary question. When a primary question like that is asked, you cannot expect specific answers, no matter how specific the supplementary question may be.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well, we are the daggy end of this Parliament, and we have in front of us a shabby, grubby, failing little Government that is now at the end of its useful purpose—assuming it had one in the first place. We know that one of the big tests of character and leadership is that when confronted with tough situations and when confronted with the consequences of your own past, you have got to step up and take responsibility, right? That is what leadership is about, that is what character is about. And what is the track record of that miserable lot over the last few months?

Well, let us start with the Todd Barclay affair—and there may well be more than one of them, but let us start with that. Here is a situation where we had our own Prime Minister running from it for months. He could not open up, could not be transparent. Asked to release his statement to the public at large, he refused to allow it to happen. He was finally confronted with the facts and has dodged and dived and ducked and weaved ever since then. It goes to integrity and it goes to character.

But it does not stop just at that grubby little affair. Just look at the fuel margins issue, which Judith Collins has been left to deal with. She got some plaudits for commissioning a report. Simon Bridges was the Minister of Energy and Resources once upon a time; he could have commissioned it. He knew that there were concerns about the massive margins being charged on fuel at the petrol pump, but he did nothing about it. So Judith Collins takes over, and she thinks: “Well, Stuart Nash is on to something here, because he’s a smart guy and he’s in touch with his community, and he’s in touch with ordinary New Zealanders.” She bends over backwards, commissions the report, and we get the report. It confirms what every driver in New Zealand has known, especially during the summer holidays when, mysteriously, petrol prices go up for no other good reason than that we know a lot more people are on the roads trying to get somewhere.

Judith Collins commissioned the report, and what is her response? Confronted with 9 years of inaction and inertia, what is her response? She says: “Commission another report.” Commission another report—we have had this problem for 9 years. We have had a Minister of Energy and Resources who has done nothing about it for 5 years, Judith Collins gets hold of it, she commissions a report that tells us in minute detail that we are being overcharged and it is all wrong—we have got the information, we have got the evidence, and her response is: “Let’s have another report. Let’s have another report. Let’s report after the election and then let’s have even another report in November, just before Christmas, just in time to do nothing about it for the next summer season.”

On housing we have had—and we know the crisis that housing is in New Zealand: prices through the roof, 80 percent of renters not being able to afford to save for their first home, 40,000 houses needed in Auckland alone, and this Government doing nothing about it. We have got a new excuse now from Steven Joyce, the Svengali of the National Party, there wheedling his way through every issue, hand in every point of failure of this Government. He now says: “Blame 2003.” It all goes back to 2003 and something that happened then. Nine years on, and they still cannot take responsibility. I just ask Steven Joyce to get out for once and talk to real New Zealanders. Talk to the young teachers I met in Auckland recently, who are on good salaries teaching in an Auckland Central school and have given up hope of ever owing their own home. That is the reality for them.

And what is this Government’s response to Hutt Valley and the desperate shortage of housing and affordable homes there? Mysteriously, 2½ months before the election, when Chris Bishop is on the back foot because he has done such a hopeless job, it trots out a plan for 60 affordable homes. This is when they are hundreds of houses short of what they need, hundreds of houses short of State homes, because they cannot rely on the local list member to do anything meaningful about it. It is absolutely appalling.

This Government is at the tail end of its life. New Zealanders expect better and deserve better, and they are going to get better. They will get a plan for more housing, for affordable housing, right across this great nation of ours. They will get a plan for restoring the cuts in health services, and especially in mental health. And they will not have Ministers parading around saying that they have been a Minister for 8 weeks and did not know this was even happening, even though they have been in a Government for 9 years and knew exactly what has been happening.

We have a plan to get it fixed, because New Zealanders deserve better and want better and, with a Labour-led Government, they will get better. On education, we will have a system that makes our young people fit for the 21st century—because this Government has given up on young New Zealanders.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): The audacity of the Labour leader never fails to amaze me, how he can stand in this House and talk about leadership and secrecy and immigration and housing standards when his party has been bringing in illegal foreign workers, not paying them, putting them up in dodgy accommodation, and not making sure they are well housed. And to stand here not telling us who is paying for it—he still will not come out and tell us who is paying for it. His whole party has been complicit in bringing in these workers to work unpaid for their campaign; poorly housed, probably breaking immigration laws, probably breaking labour laws—certainly not giving truth to the sorts of housing standards they stand up here and continue to talk about—and he has the audacity to talk about leadership in this House.

He has the audacity to talk about housing supply when not only has Labour opposed the Three Kings Quarry development; it has opposed the Point England redevelopment, it opposed the Resource Management Act changes, and it opposed special housing areas. When I, as the Minister for Social Housing, announced 13,500 new social houses being built in Auckland—and just yesterday we announced 130 being built in the Hutt Valley, with many more to come.

How many has Labour committed to building? Zero—zero new houses. But it would far rather pick holes and throw mud and come up with off-the-cuff, back-of-the-envelope, unfunded, uncosted, and unidentified promises to build on fantasy sites that it cannot identify—does not know where they are, does not own them—and has the audacity to challenge and criticise us for coming up with costed, funded, designed plans on sites we can identify.

This is a Government that is absolutely not only talking about it but doing it. We are not opposing every development that comes before the House. We have a plan to build 34,500 new houses in Auckland over the next 10 years. Just to be clear, this is the biggest Government building project since the 1950s—the biggest since the 1950s. It is the equivalent of building 3½ houses on every single street in Auckland.

The difference is that we can identify where they are going. We have the land, we have the funding, and, actually, what is more, we put in place the process that set up the Auckland Unitary Plan to even enable that to be possible. What did we get from the Opposition members? Oppose that; oppose it and come up with random, totally free-form numbers that relate to absolutely no consistency. They talked in the Hutt about the fact that they were going to build 400 houses on vacant Housing New Zealand sites. Well, there are only, at most, 100 vacant sites where they could build. Where on earth are these houses going, how are they paying for them, and how are they ever going to deliver them when they oppose every single initiative that this Government has put in place to fund them?

The social housing portfolio will focus, unashamedly, on building the social houses that we need for our tenants. At the same time, you have had in this year’s Budget from us the first increase in the accommodation supplements since 2003. We are putting $400 million a year into updating those accommodation supplement rates. For many people, they will go up by $80 a week, and, actually, that does not even take into account the changes in areas, which make many more people eligible for greater accommodation supplement levels.

In total now, under this Government, not only are we growing the social housing stock from around 66,000 houses to 72,000 houses over the next 3 years, not only are we doing that; we have also committed the first ever permanent supply of funding for emergency and transitional housing—2,150 dedicated transitional housing places, for the first time ever, to support vulnerable New Zealanders while we get them into social housing.

And it does not stop there, because our social investment approach is making sure that we are not just housing them; we are supporting them with the needs that our community has and that our social housing tenants have, whether that be in mental health, drug and alcohol addiction services, budgeting services—whatever the needs are to support them. We are getting the homeless off the streets of Auckland through our Housing First initiative; we have announced another 500 places around the rest of New Zealand. The difference is very clear. It is one of action and credibility versus inaction and incredulous and unbelievable statements from Labour Party members, who have committed nothing to social housing and make statements that, frankly, no one can believe.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I am feeling very ambitious. I am feeling very ambitious and excited about the future that we have—

Hon Member: And inaudible.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to start it again. By that stage, we hope her mike is on.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I am feeling very ambitious for New Zealand and what we can achieve. I am extremely excited. We announced a project that is truly visionary today: getting airport rail finished by 2021, in time for Auckland to host the America’s Cup and APEC. And that is something that is entirely technically achievable, yet it will require an unprecedented level of cooperation between local and central government.

Now, Aucklanders have been waiting for decades. They have been waiting for decades for a decent public transport network. Ten years ago, when I was working as a transport consultant in Auckland, we were campaigning to get electrification of the rail line. And we won that, thanks to the Green Party, in large part, under the last Labour Government. And since electrification has finally been rolled out, we have seen unprecedented levels of people using trains in Auckland, and they want more. They can see that it works. They can see that it is the only way to deal with record population growth, record arrivals of visitors. Every city of its size in the world has a decent public transport network. And I, as a young transport planner, wanted to help make that happen.

But we have had a decade of a Government, under this National Government, that has delayed progress on rail in Auckland. It dragged its heels on electrification. That should have happened by 2012, but it delayed it by well over 2 years, and in the end we did not get it finished until 2015.

When I came to Parliament in 2011, I was coming down and questioning the Minister of Transport about the City Rail Link, saying that this has to be a big priority for Auckland. Finally, after 6 years, the National Government relented and realised that, yes, people want trains because it is the only way to fix our transport problems. So it is finally going ahead, but we should not have to wait another 6 years. Things are at a breaking point.

Between the transport crisis and the housing crisis, Aucklanders have suffered for too long, and, frankly, rail to Auckland Airport is a project of national significance. It is our largest city. It is where arrivals to New Zealand generally touch down, and their first experience, more often than not, is an unreliable bus service or a traffic jam somewhere on the way to the airport.

When I questioned the Minister about this state, it was great that he did not deny outright the possibility of completing airport rail by 2021, but he had some odd answers, like the Waterview Connection being open—suddenly, it is going to take 20 minutes less to get to the airport, so we do not need a train. I am not sure whether the Minister has been to Auckland Airport recently, but the best the Waterview Connection could do is to help people get to the queues on the road heading into the airport 20 minutes faster, and that is if it is completely off-peak and no one else is using the roads. It has been too long that we have had to have this debate. I mean, people across the political spectrum in Auckland—and around the country, I think—agree that it is time for forward thinking.

We want to catch up with other cities in the world. We have had to wait too long, and the Green Party is going to deliver it. We are delivering the vision and the ambition that Aucklanders have been waiting for and that New Zealanders have been waiting for, because there is a whole host of practical solutions to some of the challenges we are facing. Whether it is transport, whether it is the climate, whether it is cleaning up our rivers, or whether it is reducing inequality, all of these are very worthy and ambitious goals, and this National Government has proven in the last 8½ years that it will not even attempt to solve any of these problems unless it is dragged, kicking and screaming.

Well, I think New Zealanders have had enough. I think they are ready for a change, and I think they are ready for a fundamental change in direction, rather than just flailing around with increasing pollution, increasing congestion, increasing house prices, and increasing homelessness. That is not the New Zealand that most Kiwis identify with. Whether they were born here or whether they have emigrated here, as I have, they know that we can all work together to create the New Zealand that we want. That is a place where we have reducing pollution, where no one—no one—is homeless, where no child is growing up in poverty, and where we have an integrated transport system that gives people real choices where they have the option to hop on a train or to let their kids walk and cycle safely to school. All of this is achievable, but only if we change the Government.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): This is a Government that is truly delivering for New Zealanders and a Government that achieves outcomes that make a tangible difference to our quality of life. The strong economy we have built in the last 9 years needs to keep growing, and it will under National because we are the only party that knows how to fuel the economy, how to keep it growing, and how to manage the growth that we have, and we are doing it very well. By getting the books into surplus, we have choices. We have ways in which we can choose to help people’s lives, and we are doing it.

My colleague the Minister for Social Housing talked about the audacity of Labour and its leadership—an oxymoron, if ever we heard it. Slave labour is certainly an epithet that fits those members. When we look at what they have achieved and what their vision is, there is nothing left to say. So I will move on to our investments and what we have done, which is more jobs, higher wages with less unemployment, and a much better start for the 60,000 young people who are now growing up in households that are not benefit-dependent. By lifting incomes and reducing taxes, we are reducing the pressure on those families that are most in need.

I need look no further than my own ministerial responsibility for seniors. The elder abuse services that we rolled out on Saturday, 1 July really will help to protect a very vulnerable group of New Zealanders. In the 2½ years I have had the privilege of being the Minister for Seniors, I have listened to groups and heard what they have had to say, which is that one of the biggest challenges they face is the elder abuse problem. It is a scourge on New Zealand society.

Unlike some parties, we listen, and that is why we have implemented the Elder Abuse Response Service (EARS), which is a particularly good evaluation of response to elder abuse services. Annually, we have something like 70,000 New Zealanders who are being abused, either physically, sexually, psychologically—perhaps through neglect—or financially. These are the sorts of concerns that have really not been addressed directly.

We have very much a social investment outlook as a Government, so we expect to see measurable outcomes for investments made. That is why, on Saturday, we rolled out a new group of providers that will be providing elder abuse services to a much wider geographical area than we ever have had before and to far more ethnic groups than we have had before, because these are among the most isolated of all our seniors. We need to be aware that the cases that we read about in the news are ones that are going on all the time in New Zealand. They are horrific. Ena Lai Dung weighed just 29 kilograms and had 15 broken bones when ambulance officers found her body. Her daughter went to prison for 13 years for manslaughter. World War II veteran Ron Greenhalgh died last year without enough money to pay for his funeral because it was squandered at the TAB by his daughter, who is currently serving home detention.

Sadly, most of these cases remain unreported, which is another reason why, just as with housing, we are taking a whole-of-Government approach—a social investment approach. We are focused on outcomes and on interventions. The Elder Abuse Response Service has had an extra investment going into it that involves 18 new organisations and 10 Age Concern branches, which are being funded for the first time. Prevention and awareness work will be run through the Ministry of Social Development office for seniors, and that is going to free up front-line providers to do the necessary work.

The cornerstone of the new EARS service is a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week helpline. It is a professionally staffed freephone—0800 EA NOT OK. I am very hopeful that it will encourage and enable people to report this problem, which some see as very shameful, or to phone the helpline to get professional advice from registered nurses as to what the options are and to be referred to their local provider.

A quick update on Predator Free 2050: this Government has a very proud record of achievement in conservation. Again, it is something that because the books are in order we are able to invest in, so we have had $76 million extra going into tourism and recreation and the values that we place on our estate, which, of course, will enable us to accommodate more visitors without spoiling their experiences through overcrowding. That extra revenue will be ploughed back into biodiversity.

It was about a year ago this month that we launched it. We have a Predator Free 2050 board, which is a limited Crown company. I met the CEO of it, Ed Chignell, today—a heck of a good guy. There are really exciting plans to engage in landscape-scale predator control throughout the country. The Department of Conservation has nine new—for each region—Predator Free 2050 rangers, who will help communities help themselves to attain their predator-free goals. Together we can do this thing, and we will achieve predator-free status by 2050. Thank you.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Watching members opposite is like watching part three of a movie series that should never have been made. You sit there with the cushion, kind of cringing behind it, because you know it is tired, it is out of ideas, and it just lacks any kind of vision.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Jumping the shark.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is right. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway says, it is the epitome of jumping the shark. This is 9 long years in the making, this Government, what we are seeing here today. What we are also seeing in the speeches—it is very interesting listening to the general debate speeches, where you see the lines get refined. I notice that Government members have now stopped saying they are delivering for all New Zealanders. That is largely because, obviously, their polling is showing that is not what people believe. This is not a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders. This is not a country where people are better off. This is a country where people are crying out for housing. This is a country where people need more from their health system, and this is a country where people need more from their education system.

The train crash that we are seeing opposite starts at the top. What we are seeing is a party headed by a leader who has no vision and is losing credibility with the New Zealand public. He is also losing moral authority. You only need to have a look at the Barclay affair. The story changes every day. Today again, in question time, we saw a man who thinks it is credible that the Prime Minister—the leader of our country, so-called—can stand up and basically “plead the Fifth” time and time again. He will not front up. He will not take responsibility. That is not leadership or what we need.

We heard the Minister responsible for housing talking about housing. Well, this Government needs to realise we have people living in cars. Newsflash: a car is not a home. It has four doors, in the main, and that is not a home. That is not a place I want to see New Zealanders calling home. We see a Government that in the middle of a housing crisis is continuing with its ideological agenda to flog off State houses. In Christchurch it is wanting to sell 2,500 State houses, and one of the consortiums that have been shortlisted to buy those houses has been accused of human rights breaches on Manus Island. These are the kinds of people who this Government thinks are capable of running our social housing. This is the one that Alfred Ngaro is not fronting up to and threatening to take away their funding if they happen to say a word out of line about the Government’s absolute failure when it comes to housing.

We do have a plan. We certainly have a plan for how many houses we are going to build in the Hutt Valley, and I can tell you there will be more affordable options. We do not think that we can keep shutting New Zealanders out of housing, like this Government does. Its plan in the Hutt Valley just shows that it has given up on affordable housing for a generation of New Zealanders. Labour will build houses. We have a housing crisis in New Zealand, and when you have a housing crisis—newsflash: you need houses. That is exactly what Labour will deliver, through its KiwiBuild programme.

When I am out and about in my electorate, in Wigram, when I am in the doorstep, when I am out meeting people, and when I am on the phone, the No. 1 issue that is raised with me is mental health. This is a Government that is absolutely letting down the country and the people of Canterbury when it comes to mental health. You only had to listen to the Minister of Health slipping and sliding in questions today, in response to Dr David Clark about what the Government is doing. We have a population that has been left traumatised by a series of events, and the latest event to traumatise them is the funding-pulling that this Government is doing in the area of mental health. It is an absolute dereliction of duty, when it comes to the people of Canterbury and their well-being. And it is something this Government will be judged by, by the people of Canterbury, on 23 September. This is a Government that is not delivering for all New Zealanders. It is a Government that is facing a crisis in housing, in health, and in education, and it is out of ideas.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): This is a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders—for all New Zealanders. The member Megan Woods can stress and strain; those members can yell, and they can try to sort of make it sound like it is plausible. The member talked about a plan. Well, let us talk about Labour’s plan. What was the Labour members’ plan, which their own leader turned up and said was an embarrassment? Why? All the things they have said about immigration, all the things they have said about students coming over—that they would regulate, that they would change, that they would ensure they would restrict—all of a sudden it came back to bite them. At first they were saying they did not know about it and they were not sure, trying to hold it at arm’s length, but that member knows for sure that if they really took a look, their leader was right; it was an embarrassment for what they had to say. All of a sudden the so-called plan to make changes, so-called, was not happening.

The member then said that this Government should be held to account. She talked about housing. Let us remember that there were the Opposition members, three of them who came together, who started to have this inquiry into homelessness. There were 20 recommendations that came out of the inquiry, and I can say to you that the No. 1 recommendation that came from the Opposition, from its inquiry, was that the Government should initiate Housing First. Housing First—that was the No. 1 recommendation from the Opposition parties. That is what this Government is doing. Opposition members could turn around and say: “Well, here you go, you just initiate it now”. That Opposition knows that there has been a pile of programmes that have been happening for 2 years over in the Waikato. What we were able to see from those programmes—over 274 residents came along, the chronically homeless, working with people from The Wise Group, with those who are practitioners in the field, who are making the difference. What they were able to achieve was a 92 percent residency rate—the retention to residency over that period of time, over 2 years.

Sue Moroney: You believe that?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: That is right—the member over there knows. It happened in the Waikato. It was a successful programme making a difference for homelessness.

So what have we done? Out of that lesson, we have now extended it through to Auckland. We have got the Auckland City Mission, with Chris Farrelly, which has come on board. We have got VisionWest. We have got Lifewise. A number of other practitioners are coming together to address this, and so far, since this has been initiated, we have begun to see more of those organisations dealing with the chronically homeless.

In those 20 recommendations, there was another recommendation—I think it was recommendation No. 3—that this Government should increase the State housing stock to meet the needs. Well, just to let the members know, they would have seen that we have not only increased it in the announcement of 2017, but this was the first Government to introduce $354 million to address the issues of emergency housing. Special needs grants—for those people whom the Opposition members have been talking about, those who are sleeping in cars. Yes, we know there are those who are struggling. There is an opportunity there for special needs grants, then moving into transitional housing, and then moving into social housing. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I will not put up with that level of interjection coming from Sue Moroney.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: There is a little bit of excitement, I know, because they are enjoying the news. This is good news. This is a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders. So that was another recommendation that came from the inquiry from Opposition members. We know that we have increased the stock out there. It is making a difference. The announcement has made 2,150 places available, for emergency places, to deal with the issues of those who are challenged by homelessness and the homeless conditions that they have been in.

The other issue that was in the 20 recommendations was around the review of the accommodation supplement—that is right, it was in their recommendations. I am proud to say, and the members know this, that in Budget 2017—since 2003, by the way, when there was no review—we are reviewing the accommodation supplement. The members next door are asking for the proof of the pudding—in other words, where is the action that this Government is taking? It is taking those actions. Those were recommendations that came out of the 20 recommendations, and around about 15 to 16 of them have already been put in place by this Government. So the inquiry that they had—we know that we are making a difference in that regard.

I have been available and have been down to places like Gisborne, where there have been some challenges. I have been proud to announce that even down in Gisborne, we have been able to see the Eastland Motor Lodge—19 units—able to help 76 local families, and we are working alongside providers like women’s refuge that can provide wraparound support. Let us think about Hawke’s Bay, with 23 short-term transitional places available—the Clansman Motor Lodge in Hastings, and the Napier Garden Motel, which is centrally located.

When the Opposition is asking for the proof of the pudding—are we delivering—this is a Government that is delivering. It is delivering in emergency housing, it is delivering in social housing, and it is delivering on addressing the issues, even of homelessness. We are not shirking our responsibility. When the people go to the polls on 23 September they can see that we are a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Oh, how far left the National Government has come. Today we are going to have legislation go through this House in order to change the Youth Court age, the youth justice jurisdiction, to include 17-year-olds. Guess what? Eight or 9 years ago, in 2008, Labour had this exact same legislation on the table, and what did National say? National said: “We would be a bunch of wusses if we supported this legislation.” That is what those members said. Now we have got a situation, 9 years later—flip-flop—where National is using Labour legislation. The Labour Party loves it, the Green Party loves it—that is how far left the National Government has come in 8 short years. I know for a fact that there are going to be some senior members in National who are cringing at the left, liberal pathway that this National Government is going.

The problem with the youth justice system is that National has got its blinkers on. It has got its fingers in its ears, and it does not want to listen to facts. It does not want to listen to the evidence. In fact, the major mistake that most people make in looking at the youth justice system is that they do not realise that 85 percent of the youth justice system is operated by the police. It does not even make the Youth Court. It does not even go through the family group conferences. So who is the first group you are going to ask whether you should change legislation? How about the people who deal with those young criminals, those young thugs, day in, day out—how about the Police Association? How about the fact that the Police Association said that 75 percent of the front-line police do not want this legislation to change? They do not want 17-year-olds to be involved with the youth justice system.

How about going even further? How about asking the police officers who deal with those young people day in, day out, the youth aid officers? Fifty-five percent of the youth aid officers do not want this youth age jurisdiction to change. Why? Because they know that it is not going to work for those young people. They can see that right now the youth justice system is failing the 16-year-olds and under, so all that is going to happen is that 17-year-olds are going to be failed as well.

The problem we have got is that the Minister stands up, day in, day out, and now Mark Mitchell stands up, and says there is evidence and there is proof—evidence and proof—that 17-year-olds will be better off in the youth justice system. I asked for that proof, and they sent it to me. I am going to quote from the evidence that the Minister and this Government have sent to me. I am going to quote from the evidence they use as justification to include 17-year-olds in the youth justice system: “the conclusions regarding diversion programs become rather difficult to interpret, as these two meta-analyses, which set out with the same goal, ended with virtually unique sets of included studies and opposing findings.”—opposing findings. And: “the evidence from these studies is insufficient to determine whether or not laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult court justice system are effective… ”. They do not know whether they are effective.

What else? “As indicated in the above review, the findings from these studies were contradictory.” This is all evidence that has been given to me. How about this one: “the effects of transfer on crimes not regarded as violent are not yet clear, although transferred youth seemed to show lower rates”—lower rates—“of later drug offenses.” That is contradictory evidence—mixed evidence, at best. This is the best part—the conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system are effective in preventing or reducing violence in the general juvenile population.”

This is the evidence that this Government and this Minister presented when asked for justification for the very legislation that is going through the House today. When asked for the evidence, that is the evidence that we got. That is the evidence that this National Government thinks is sufficient to include more 17-year-olds in a failing youth justice system—a failing youth justice system. I have been in this House for the last couple of weeks, and I have told that Minister that there has been an increase in serious offences by young people of 40 percent across the country, but there has been a decrease in the convictions in court for that same age group over that same time period. Is there any wonder that dairy owners, liquor store owners, and the hard-working small-business owners feel threatened and unsafe in their communities?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I feel a bit short-changed. I was looking forward to a Ron Mark special. I mean, he has got only 4 more weeks left as deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party, because Shane is on the way. Shane is about to take over. So I was looking forward to a Ron Mark special, but instead we got something from Darroch Ball.

I have to say, Darroch Ball—he has at least learnt not to read from speeches. Every other New Zealand First member does seem to read from speeches. But he is wrong. He is wrong because youth justice is actually working well for New Zealanders. Youth crime is down 33 percent since we have been in Government. Youth crime is down by a third since we have been in Government, and Māori youth offending is down by half. If we want to talk about youth justice in this country, I think we should look at the record, and see the record of the National-led Government, which shows youth justice is working. In fact, if we can see more young people getting in front of the Youth Court, there will be fewer instances of young people reoffending, and I think that is a win for young people in New Zealand.

When we look around the House and we look around the different parties and at how they are looking, I am proud to be on this side of the House. An election is a contest of ideas. An election is a time when parties go to the public and say: “This is what we believe in, this is what we stand for, this is what we’ve delivered, and this is what we’re doing for New Zealanders.” When we look at the record of the National-led Government, where more people are getting into work, where more jobs are being created, where wages are rising in our economy, and where there are 60,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes—I am going to be proud to be campaigning on that record.

When we look at the other side, those members talk about a race to the bottom. The only race to the bottom I have seen so far is the Leader of the Opposition’s approval ratings in the polls. He cannot even crack 10 percent in the preferred Prime Minister polls. The Labour Party cannot even crack 30 percent in the approval polls, yet those members campaign and they sit there as if they are about to walk over to this side of the House. I have to say, if they want to do that they have to earn it from New Zealanders. We have been earning it by ensuring we are delivering for New Zealanders and by ensuring we are doing more for them and putting more money in their pockets.

When we look at the Labour Party—it used to care about housing for New Zealanders. But it comes into this House and it opposes things like the Point England development. It opposed the Three Kings development. If Labour really cared about housing, it would be supporting us on those policies. The Labour Party used to care about jobs in this economy. It used to care about creating jobs in the economy. It has got an industrial relations policy, though, that harks back to the 1970s, will see strike after strike at Christmas and holiday time, will cost New Zealanders jobs, and will see more people in the unemployment queue. That is what the Labour Party’s industrial relations and jobs policy now means for New Zealanders.

It used to be the party of free trade as well. It used to be the party that believed we should be exporting more around the world and that we should be helping to grow the economy. But now Labour is opposed to more jobs being created in trade industry. It is opposed to more trading opportunities for New Zealanders. It is opposed to more opportunities for New Zealand business to grow and for more New Zealand businesses to interact with the rest of the world. When it comes to trade, Labour has gone off the reservation. It has joined Kennedy Graham. He is a hard worker, but goodness me! Kennedy, I am sorry—I cannot agree with your trade policy; Labour does now, though. Labour does not believe in free trade for New Zealanders and it does not support trade policies. It will be costing New Zealanders future job opportunities, should it ever get into Government over this side.

Labour used to care about low-income families as well. It used to care about policies that would put more money in their pockets. Year after year, though, it is opposing Budget measures that would see more support for New Zealand families. When we increased benefit wages, benefit numbers, and benefit payouts by $25 a week, Labour opposed that. When we increased and made changes through the Budget that would see 1.3 million New Zealanders have more money in their pockets, Labour opposed that as well. The Labour Party no longer cares about low-income New Zealanders. It no longer cares about people wanting houses. It no longer cares about more jobs for New Zealanders. It no longer cares about trading with the rest of the world.

The thing that I have to say stands out most is that the Labour Party—the Labour Party that cares and used to talk about migrant wages and migrant living conditions and working conditions—is the party that has now brought in place slave labour conditions for its overseas-imported volunteers, and those members should be ashamed of that.

We are creating more jobs. More New Zealanders have more opportunities in their lives. We are seeing crime rates coming down. We are seeing more police on the street. We are seeing more opportunities in the health system for people to get access to health, and our education achievement rates are rising. We are delivering for New Zealanders. We are proud of what we stand for, and we look forward to the next 3 months.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The previous speaker, Jami-Lee Ross, talked about a contest of ideas, and I think those watching on the TV will find it deeply ironic that all of the ideas that he debated in his speech were Labour Party ideas. He may have got them wrong and he may have sent us off in the wrong direction, but he had nothing—absolutely nothing—to say about what the National Party would do if it is the next Government. It has been here for 9 years.

He talked about unemployment and he talked about our industrial relations policy and tried to say that that would create employment issues. The Labour Government had unemployment at the lowest in the Western World when it left office. After the global financial crisis, unemployment went up. It is now higher than it was during the global financial crisis, because of this Government’s stewardship. That is what a track record looks like on industrial relations policy from that side. During the 1990s unemployment was between 7 and 11 percent—it jumped up and down. It has stayed high; this Government has high unemployment. A Labour Government believes in full employment, tries to get there, and puts policies in place to make sure people do have work. That is the contrast that we need to see today.

This side of the House does have fresh ideas. After 9 long years of failure on that side of the House, all we can see, when National members are proposing how they are going to boost the economy, is the rocketing sales of tape-recorders down in Clutha-Southland and a job creation scheme in National’s electorate offices down there. That is their fresh idea. That is the only one we have seen recently. We certainly heard nothing at all from that member, Jami-Lee Ross.

While we are on the Bill English “de-Barclay”, I think we need to examine whether we can now have confidence, as a country, in our Prime Minister. He was caught telling the truth by the police, but no one else caught him out in that regard for quite some time. He told this House that he knew nothing of the affair and that he knew nothing about recorded tapes of private conversations, which look like they are illegal activities. He said he knew nothing about it. Finally, he was caught up, telling the truth when the papers and the statements to the police were released.

That is a failure of moral leadership. We saw it with the Treaty of Waitangi celebrations up in Northland, where the Prime Minister did not show up—again. Every time there is trouble he ducks for cover. There is no moral leadership with this current Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister, but I am afraid we do not have a leader.

Hon Maggie Barry: Matt McCarten? How’s Labour dealing with Matt McCarten? Where’s your leadership?

Dr DAVID CLARK: Contrast that with what happens when Andrew Little faces up and deals with the matter that the Hon Maggie Barry raises. Andrew Little owned the issue and apologised. It was peripherally done in the name of the Labour Party, and he got on and dealt with the issue. He made sure that those volunteers were accommodated appropriately and looked after.

I heard Jami-Lee Ross claiming that they have no volunteers in their party. Well, I am not surprised, with ideas like his—with what he was trying to put across. He was trying to say there were no unpaid people working for his party. I am not surprised, with the set of ideas he tried to bring across in the House today. There were zip—zero, zilch—new ideas. After 9 long years they are out of touch.

We need a fresh approach, and that fresh approach will involve making sure that we fund services properly and that we get on with building new houses. Stop the excuses. Stop the excuses about not building houses, about how the market will set the prices, and about how people will come across from Australia, which we heard today. Goodness me! Nothing—everything but a policy on building houses. The Labour Party wants, with the KiwiBuild project, to build 10,000 houses a year and make sure that Kiwis have access to affordable housing.

In the health sphere we want to make sure that policies are in place to deal with the rising crisis in mental health. We know that the need for mental health services has gone up 60 percent in the last decade, and yet that Government has funded less than half of that amount for support services. It has gone up only 28 percent in that time. When you have demand on hospital services going up and you do not fund those services, they get cut. We have seen that in terms of many kinds of services in the health sector. We have seen it with hip and knee surgeries. We have seen it with cataracts. We have seen it with plenty of other services. Over half a million Kiwis could not afford to go to the GP last year because of rising prices—$42 is the average price now to go and see a GP. That has happened under this Government’s watch. Health services are becoming less accessible to the New Zealanders who pay taxes and expect to have adequate access, affordable access, to quality healthcare.

We will also put money into education and make sure every kid has the opportunity to get ahead. The Labour Party believes every New Zealander should have a world-class education at their local school, and will give opportunities post - secondary school too, working towards 3 years of free post - secondary education.

This party believes in the future of New Zealanders. We believe in strong public services and in making sure every Kiwi has the opportunity to get ahead.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): If I were a bookmaker, I would say the odds on David Clark standing there in 3 years’ time saying “Oh, 12 long years.” are pretty good.

Dr David Clark: Arrogant. Out of touch—out of touch. Arrogant. Claiming 12 years already—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

IAN McKELVIE: While I certainly do not want to concentrate on the negative—he did not like that, did he—I do want to talk about provincial New Zealand and about what has been going on in provincial New Zealand as a result of the activities of this Government over a number of years. Of course, in my own region we have an economic development strategy called Accelerate25, which is moving very quickly to deal with some initiatives that this Government helped with—set in train—and that will make a big difference to my region.

This is a Government that will work for a New Zealand where innovation and hard work is recognised and rewarded, and a New Zealand that looks after the most vulnerable and helps them change their lives. That is what our last two Budgets have been about, and it has made a significant difference. Our philosophy is to enable and encourage personal responsibility and a positive attitude, and it is working.

I want to talk about a number of initiatives in the Rangitīkei electorate. The first one that I want to get on to is the Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, or RAL, which is putting $100 million into developments on Mount Ruapehu. That is a massive injection of money into the tourism industry, and it shows the confidence that that company has in what is going on in provincial New Zealand and what is going on in New Zealand in general. It is hugely exciting for that region. It will create a number of jobs—a large number of new jobs—in the region. It will create the incentive for companies to get on and build new facilities and new accommodation, and it will encourage the use of a large number of—well, the two national parks, for a starter—tracks and cycleways that have been created as a result of this Government’s investment in the national cycleway and the Tongariro Crossing, as a result of the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) investment in the top end of my electorate, which has been significant, particularly around the Tangiwai Memorial, which was opened by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage some 4 or 5 weeks ago, and, as I said before, the Tongariro Crossing.

Sometimes in provincial New Zealand we are challenged by issues that are significantly difficult for us to manage. In the top end of my electorate I have a company called the Lines Company, which for some years now has been quite challenging. It has been challenging for the local MP, I can assure you. It has been challenging for its community. It has now got new leadership, a new chief executive officer, and a new chair. It has adopted a new methodology, which was researched by Roger Sutton, and that will make a massive difference to the top of my electorate. I think the exciting thing about that is that eventually the market finds a way of resolving issues that, frankly, are hugely difficult for Governments to intervene in.

Iain Lees-Galloway: They’re not happy in Taumarunui, Ian.

IAN McKELVIE: It is, actually.

I want to talk about the cycleways, the walkways, and the DOC investment, as I talked about earlier. The special infrastructure fund has put over a million dollars into the top end of my electorate, making a massive difference to the Ruapehu District’s ability to fund some of those projects that are so necessary where we have got very low populations. Yesterday some further funding for the “Great Rides” was put into the Mountain to the Sea cycleway, which, of course, goes from the top of the mountain, basically, to the Wanganui coast, and that is really exciting for a major part of my electorate.

I have not seen in my lifetime the primary sector in as good an order as it is right now. I think it is hugely encouraging that that whole sector has got its act together, producing really good product, and many of our newer industries—what I call newer industries, like the wine and kiwifruit industries, and things like that—are doing hugely well. It is very positive for provincial New Zealand, and it is very positive for New Zealand.

I just want to make mention, though, of one part of that sector that is doing very poorly, and that is the wool industry. It is ironic, is it not, that the wool industry voted not to fund itself and not to support R & D and not to support its marketing processes, and it wonders why it is going no good. That is a very strong signal, I think.

Finally, I just want to talk about the Silver Fern Farms investment and the turnaround of the meat industry. That investment has completely turned the meat industry on its head in a matter of 6 months. Who would have thought that 6 months ago lambs would have beaten the $150 that Federated Farmers have been talking about for some time? It has gone past that long since, and it has gone past it because the meat industry has suddenly got its feet on the ground and it is up and running. I do not think that will change in a hurry, so that is really very positive for provincial New Zealand. So thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): In New York right now perhaps the most important event ever to be held is under way. Some 130 countries are negotiating a treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The negotiations have a pedigree. It was 71 years ago, in January 1946, that the United Nations General Assembly, in its very first resolution, set up a commission to manage the elimination of atomic weapons from national armaments.

The first aspiration of we the peoples of the United Nations was this: a nuclear-weapon-free world. Progress has been slow and painstaking. Originally, five countries still thought it necessary to possess nuclear weapons—now nine countries—for their national security, as they deem it. A partial control was achieved half a century ago with the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), but it is a fraught deal. The nine States possess, even today, 15,000 nuclear weapons, with 1,800 on high alert. They are not negotiating to disarm, despite a legal obligation to do so under the NPT.

A seminal, historic breakthrough occurred in December last year at the United Nations (UN) when the General Assembly agreed to negotiate a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons for good. Progress has been rapid. A final text is expected this Friday. The draft is extraordinary. The parties will not manufacture, possess, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons. After seven decades the world is beginning to rid itself of nuclear weapons. There is one weakness. The draft allows a State to withdraw. So why is that a problem?

The central purpose of the treaty is to outlaw nuclear weapons. The World Court judges their use to be generally contrary to international law. The treaty notes this. It also says: “Nuclear weapons are abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.” The treaty talks about the irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. How can a State negotiate, sign, and ratify a treaty declaring nuclear weapons to be prohibited, contrary to law, abhorrent to the principles of humanity, and for their elimination to be irreversible, and then proceed to withdraw and acquire and use them? In human logic, not easily—actually, not at all. Why is there any withdrawal option? Because of a State’s traditional right to exercise its national sovereignty. But customary international law provides for certain universal norms that no State can violate. Neither the UN Charter nor the human rights covenants have withdraw clauses. It is strange that this treaty would.

A related consideration is that the court, back in 1996, could not conclude whether nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in extreme circumstances of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. In making this judgment, the court noted that there is neither a customary nor conventional international law for any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, as such. That is what this treaty is designed to achieve: a final prohibition by a majority, then universally. The seminal contribution of this treaty is a total and irreversible prohibition. Once a State enters that tunnel there can be no backing out, only going forward towards the light.

So what to do? It is late in the piece and many States remain fixated on their national sovereignty in the age of the global commons, but there is some middle ground. If there is to be a withdrawal option, there should be a high threshold. If a State declares it necessary for its very survival to withdraw and acquire a prohibited weapon, it would be understood that this would trigger an extraordinary meeting of the parties, to consider the merits of any stated reasons and establish a reconciliation body to avert withdrawal. It is not perfect. The treaty would be better and more logical without withdrawal, but this might be a reasonable compromise, and New Zealand could lead on that after signature and ratification.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a fantastic opportunity for me to round off this debate as speaker No. 12 of 12, because, obviously, I get to end the debate, conclude it, on a note of truth, especially in acknowledging what this Government has achieved in 9 years, and the fact that this country is a fantastic country. We have moved so far in 9 years under the leadership of this Government and with the help of the New Zealand people.

I want to acknowledge that this country is a fantastic place to live, work, and raise a family. Looking at our economy, it is growing at 3 percent—the envy of the OECD—creating 200,000 jobs in the past 3 years. Average wages are going up. An average wage at the moment is $59,000, increased by $17,000 since 2008. We are doing this by diversifying our economy and investing in R & D and Primary Growth Partnerships. We are delivering in the dairy, sheep, and primary industries. We are investing in manufacturing. We are investing in ultra-fast broadband (UFB) so that our businesses can connect with the rest of the world to sell their wares. International education is booming and a thriving industry, as we attract internationals to our world-class universities and polytechnics. And, of course, we are investing into tourism to show off and showcase our fantastic, clean, green country, and we can do all this because we have got our books in balance and we have created momentum so that we have a surplus that gives us choices to invest across a range of portfolios and deliver for all New Zealanders.

I am very, very proud of the fact that we are delivering for all New Zealanders. We will not leave the vulnerable behind. We are firmly entrenched in our social investment model, and we will continue to analyse the data, look at trends, look at the drivers of things that are holding back our most vulnerable, and invest in them. Let us not forget that we are the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits in real terms. We are the Government that has had a $2 billion families package to put more money in the back pockets of low to middle income New Zealanders so that they have that money to spend. We are the first Government to start reducing ACC levies and, again, to put money in the back pockets of New Zealanders, and that all comes about by prudent management of the books.

We have invested a record $17 billion into health to make sure that our children get the best start in life and to make sure that our people are getting the surgeries that they need and the health attention, so that they can lead healthy lives moving forward. Of course, we have our flagship policies like free doctors visits for under-13s. In Southland and Otago alone, 48,000 children have benefited from free doctors visits in that region. It is such a help to be able to take your family to the doctor, get early intervention, and make sure that children are healthy and happy moving forward. In Southland, again, with our investment into early childhood education (ECE), we have 97.7 percent ECE participation rates. So not only are our children happy and healthy but they are also getting an education from the word go so that they can create a platform to springboard from to gain the skills that they need to become productive citizens in the future.

As my colleague Mr McKelvie has rightly noted, this is a Government that is interested in regional development. We are a Government that has created a Business Growth Agenda and swung in behind the regions with regional strategies, making sure that we put our money where our mouth is so that tangible results can be achieved.

As part of that, I have to mention that it has been a challenge of late, in Southland, with the Bonamia ostreae situation that has occurred down in Stewart Island. That has been a distressing situation, but, again, the Government, through the Ministry for Primary Industries, has swung into action. We are going through the phases of removing the infected stock and making sure that it is done in a controlled way to protect the $20 million wild fishery that exists. As part of that, we are putting recovery officers in place so that they can work with Work and Income, the district health board, and all of the businesses, to make sure that those people are supported in a mental health capacity. So I am very pleased with the delivery and the goals that this Government has achieved.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 4 July.

Part 6 Operation of governance bodies (continued)

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): We are deliberating Part 6, and I would like to start off talking about clause 202, “Powers, duties, and responsibilities of governance bodies”. I will start off with clause 202(1)(aa), which has been inserted, just so that people understand what the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the governance bodies are to be. Clause 202(1)(a) says: “manage the asset base in accordance with the objects of the body as stated in the governance agreement;”. Of course, that makes total sense in that every organisation should have objects or objectives that they work to meet. Then 202(1)(aa) says: “hold and manage an asset base for the benefit of the owners of the Māori freehold land managed under the governance agreement;”.

I just want to clarify there, too, whom we are talking about when we speak about owners, because, according to clause 156(1), “A governance body is the legal owner of the asset base that it manages …”, but 156(2) says: “An owner of Māori freehold land managed under a governance agreement—(a) retains beneficial ownership, but not legal ownership,”. So the governance body is the legal owner, but the people who own the land—the asset—themselves, they are the beneficial owners. I think we just have to keep reminding people of that so that there is no confusion around who the beneficial owners are, compared with who the legal owners are, who happen to be the governance body.

Clause 202(1)(b) says it must “operate in a manner that is consistent with the governance agreement;”. Clause 202(1)(c) says: “operate in a manner that does not, and is not likely to, create a substantial risk of serious loss to—(i) the owners;”. Now, this is very, very important, because this is where we would be concerned that those beneficial owners, who have put their faith into a governance body—we do not want that faith to be misplaced if the governance body does not actually manage or operate the governance body in the way it should. So this clause 202 is just talking about the powers and duties of the governance body. It is very important.

For example, clause 202(1)(d) says it must “be satisfied, before incurring an obligation or a liability, that there is a reasonable prospect of the governance body being able to meet the obligation or liability …”. So, in other words, it is saying that this governance body cannot enter into any sort of work or go purchasing anything or set up any sort of liability without first knowing that it can meet the liability. Again, this is because the beneficial owners are putting their faith into these governance bodies to make sure that they actually grow the asset and grow the wealth of the organisation.

In the submissions, groups have said that this is a positive step towards more owner groups ensuring suitably qualified people are appointed to manage their land assets. In other words, the people who are appointed must be able to fulfil these very functions that I have been talking about, such as being able to run an organisation, making sure that when they enter into any sort of business transaction they know what the potential liabilities and obligations are, and that, as clause 202(2) says: “For the purpose of performing its role, a governance body”, i.e., the people on that governance body, “has—(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and (b) for the purpose of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.” It is really important that landowners understand that the governance bodies have full rights, powers, and privileges.

Clause 203 talks about the “Duties and responsibilities of kaitiaki”. As we talked about last night, a kaitiaki—although the Māori translation means like a caregiver, for the purposes of this bill a kaitiaki is somebody who has the powers, basically, of a director of a company. In their role, a kaitiaki of a governance body must act honestly and in good faith. That is most important, and they must “act for a proper purpose;”—this is clause 203(ab). It is very important that the kaitiaki of any board or any governance body is acting for the right reasons. Again, a submitter says: “It is not clear to us if any distinction is intended between the duties and responsibilities for kaitiaki of different types of governing bodies, for example for kaitiaki governing a body corporate compared to kaitiaki governing a trust.”

I will just carry on. There is a concern that the new Act may not fit with other legislation—when I say “fit”, for example the duties and liabilities for directors under the Companies Act of 1993 and how they apply to kaitiaki governing a company, under this bill that we are debating.

Also, it was raised that the fiduciary obligations of kaitiaki are not clear—for example, to act in the best interests of the governing body and/or the landowners. The bill says it must “act honestly and in good faith”, but it is not clear whether they must act in the best interests of the governing body or the landowners. There was concern that there was no obligation placed on kaitiaki to act in the best interests of the beneficial owners. So it is just not quite explicit in here, and that is a concern, I guess. By looking at the duties and responsibilities, we would assume that that is the case, although, as I say, it is not actually explicit.

There is immunity for kaitiaki from personal liability. This is clause 204: “A kaitiaki of a governance body is not, by reason only of being a kaitiaki, personally liable for—(a) any obligation of the governance body; or (b) any act done or not done by the governance body in good faith in the performance or intended performance of the duties and responsibilities of the governance body.”

I guess that is in there because if kaitiaki were actually liable for deeds done in good faith, that actually might be a disincentive for good people to want to become kaitiaki. In terms of immunity, it is good. I just hope—and, obviously, this goes for any sort of organisation—that those people in those positions of responsibility do actually do things in good faith, but also make sure, as I said earlier on, that they have the full capacity to carry on or undertake business activities and that they know, before they make decisions about incurring obligations or liabilities, that they actually have the prospect of the governance bodies being able to meet those obligations or liabilities.

So, with that, I will end there. There is plenty more for our members to talk about, just here on Part 6. It would be lovely to see members from the Government—this is a substantial piece of legislation affecting Māori land. It would be lovely to hear the points of view, the questions, and the incisive insights of members on the other side of the House, since it does affect all our Māori land. So I will leave it there for now.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make some comments on Part 6. Of course, the Minister explained last night the purpose of Part 6 and I will not rehash what he explained. But it is a critical part of this piece of legislation. This is the part that talks about the role of the governance body. It talks about their responsibilities. It talks about the kaitiaki or the trustees who are appointed to the governance roles. It talks about the distribution of dividends that may be conjured up. So this Part 6—it is really critical that we examine it in the way that it deserves to be examined. It is clear that Māori owners have been told, through this particular clause, how to manage their land. That is what they have been told. So it is important, as much as we possibly can, to ask questions for clarity, to the Minister in the chair, around the particular clauses that I am about to go into.

I do not want to repeat my colleague Kelvin Davis, but when he went through clause 202, in terms of the question around which owners—so we are talking about clause 202(1)(aa), where we mention “the benefit of the owners”. My question to the Minister is: which owner are we talking about? Are we talking about the legal owner or the beneficiary owner? I draw the Minister’s attention to clauses 47(1)(a) to 47(1)(d) in the bill, where he outlines the rights of owners, and in subclause (2)(a) he talks about land being managed by the governance body. So it would be really good to hear clarity from the Minister around whether we are talking about legal or beneficiary owners, in relation to clause 202.

I want to turn the Committee’s attention to clause 204. Clause 204 talks about the trustees’, kaitiaki’s, personal liability. It talks about, obviously, the kaitiaki or trustees of these governance bodies being personally exempt from liability. In clause 204 it explains that. Clause 205 then talks about the immunity of owners from personal liability. My question to the Minister is if the trustees on these governance boards, which Māori land owners are going to be forced to have, are not liable and if the owners, under clause 205, are not personally liable, then who is? Who is, if something goes dreadfully wrong in terms of the governance board and the governance arrangement where there is something untoward? It is unclear, in the part, as to who is liable. So we are clear on who is not liable. My question to the Minister, therefore, is who is liable.

I turn to clauses 206(1)(a) and 206(1)(b). Just so that I understood the question around certain parcels of land—as I read that, and, of course, the Minister may be able to correct me—we have got clause 206(1)(a) where we talk about how the governance body can decide to hold Māori freehold land in one or more parcels, or “land acquired or to be acquired by the body, by way of purchase or gift,”. Then, in subclause (1)(b), we talk about “1 or more parcels of land, other than Māori freehold land, that is already held by the body under a governance agreement.”

The question that came to me, on that particular clause, was does this protect the—I use the word “foundation”, but the original owners within the governance group, if the governance entity decides to set up a separate entity? Does this particular clause protect against the ability of a governance body to set up a separate entity? So I will just leave that there, for the Minister to answer.

Clause 206(2), “As soon as practicable after making …” is the beginning of that subclause. When you turn over the page, to subclause (3) of clause 206, we have got “within 1 month after the later of …”. There are quite a few clauses within this particular part that have specific times, either within 1 month—and then, in other clauses, it had “as soon as possible”. I will come to my tabled amendments, because I have tried to offer up some suggestions to the Minister around where we are specifying time limits and where, in other areas, we are not. Clause 206(2) is an example of what I am talking about, where we have the words “As soon as practicable after making the decision,” whereas, when you turn over the page to clause 206(3), we are saying “within 1 month after” to amend the governance agreement and send the amendment to the chief executive for registration. That is a question for the Minister.

In clause 207 we talk about “Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land”. When I look at the definition in this particular clause, I get that there is a bit of a mixing between selling and exchanging in the explanation of clause 207, simply because, if the Minister looks at clause 207, and if we go down to “If a governance body sells a parcel of Māori freehold land,”—this is subclause (2)—“the body must,—(a) as soon as practicable after the sale,—(i) use the net proceeds from the sale to acquire, improve, or acquire and improve the replacement land identified in the allocation scheme required under section 104(3)(b);”. The question I have for the Minister is—to me, that sounds like we are telling the governance body, if it is selling land, that it must do something with the sale, and I am not too sure what part of the tino rangatiratanga principle those particular clauses, clauses 207(2)(a)(i) and 207(2)(b), actually meets. The Minister may have some thoughts on that.

If I move to clause 208, where we talk about “Requirements in cases of partition, amalgamation, or boundary adjustment of Māori freehold land managed under governance agreement”—when I look at clauses 208(1) and 208(2), the question I have, because it talks about what the section applies to in terms of partition amalgamations and boundary adjustments, is where is the notification and consultation with owners in terms of clause 208? It does not mention it. Of course, I know, it may be contained somewhere else in the bill, but one of the considerations—I would have thought that the governance body has a duty to notify and consult with owners, if we are going into partitions, amalgamations, or boundary adjustments of Māori freehold land. I will leave that for the Minister to answer.

In clause 209(2)(c)(iii), we have got the statement that says: “in a way that is fair and equitable to all the owners.” We are talking now about the allocation scheme, about designing, for the land that will be utilised, the allocation or adjustment of the ownership of the parcel. Of course, it talks about allocation or adjustment of the ownership of the parcel in a way that is fair and equitable to all owners. I guess the question I have for the Minister is what does that look like? How would “fair and equitable to all the owners” be tested? Again, maybe the Minister will have a response in due time.

Of course, in clause 209(2)(a), we are talking about how clause 102(8) overrides subclauses (2)(b) and 2(c). I guess that when I read clause 102(8) and the subclauses (2)(b) and (2)(c), there does not appear to be any difference between what it is overriding. The question I have is why have we got that particular subclause (2)(a) in that particular clause?

I am only on page 160, and in terms of Part 6 we have got another 18 pages to go. I am going to take my seat because I know some colleagues have got some questions, but I do want to come back. I have got a suite, like I said in my opening statement, of tabled amendments for this particular part. I would like the opportunity to talk to all of them. They have been designed, in a way, to have some semblance across this part, Part 6. Also, I have some concerns that I have not yet raised but will, hopefully, get the opportunity to.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I really welcome this in depth and part-by-part debate, to be honest. I think that we owe it to our people. I do appreciate the fact that we are all in the same boat, where we are sifting through quite complex legislation, going back and forth, probably getting things wrong here and there—but this is what this House is supposed to be about. I really would appreciate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and all members of the Committee taking the opportunity to actually debate these clauses, for our people. This is incredibly important.

Part 6—I think I am at clause 210, in Part 6. I wanted to pick up on something. Again, I welcome the Minister’s comment on this. Part 6 is “Operation of governance bodies”. Part 6 concentrates on the operation of governance bodies over land. We go to clause 210, which talks about the requirements for a land management plan. If we are talking about operations of governance bodies, and if we go to clause 210, “Requirements for land management plan”—now, I am quite interested in this particular part of the legislation. This clause says: “(1) This section applies”—and then it outlines how this particular land management plan requirement would apply. If we go to clause 210(3), it says “The governance body must have in place a land management plan that—”, and then it laundry-lists the types of things that the legislation stipulates should be in the land management plan. I am interested in this, and I welcome the Minister’s response while having this debate here in the Committee about what the things are about this land management plan.

For example, if I just pull out a few of these, subclause (3) says: “The governance body must have in place a land management plan that—(a) identifies the Māori freehold land that is managed under the governance agreement; and (b) sets out any proposed changes that affect the Māori freehold land”. If we go down, I was particularly interested in clause 210(3)(f), where the land management plan “sets out the risks of adopting, as well as the risks of not adopting, the land management plan; and (g) in respect of a proposed disposition of a parcel of Māori freehold land, sets out—(i) why the disposition [might be] necessary”. And so on and so forth. This is a land management plan that, I am assuming, is to be available for our people to see how our land is going to be managed by these governance bodies mandated under Part 6 of this legislation. I think this is really interesting and should be debated here in this Committee. Let us pull this apart. Let us have a look. On the face of it, this looks like it could be a worthwhile thing.

I think it is relevant to all parts of this bill, but I would like to take the liberty to say that I represent one of many Māori who do not have a lot of experience in whenua and land issues. Some people in this House have some incredible experience, which I acknowledge and has been important in the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee on this bill. I am, probably like most of our people—you know what? To be honest, I do not even know whether I am part and parcel to any landownership. There are a lot of us in this country who would be in a similar position. I know that we have had a clause-by-clause debate in the Māori Affairs Committee, but that is very different to having the debate here in public, which is what this House is for. I look at this—wow, there is a land management plan. There are many of us who do not even know whether we are part of any land management plan, whether we are descendants of land, and then we are talking about the opportunity to have a land management plan in front us. This is really, really important stuff, and I really would welcome the Minister and all members to take all opportunities. We are all in the same boat. Look at this. This is huge. It goes all over the place.

Then if we stick with clause 210(3)(a), after it talks about “land management plan” this part of the legislation then says that for a governance body’s decision to put in place a land management plan—and then it refers us to clause 13 of schedule 4. This is because what it says is that the land management plan—it talks about the thresholds where the land management plan applies in certain situations, including dispossession. So then if we go from clause 210(3)(a) and refer to clause 13 of schedule 4, and we go down to clause 13(3), “The decisions for which a minimum level of owner agreement is required” for example, and this also goes back to clause 201(3)(a), it says: “The agreement of owners who together hold 75% or more of the participating owners’ …”.

For some pieces of land that could be a handful, for some other pieces of land that could be a large number of people. But this stuff is incredibly relevant. There are more than likely situations where our land is being dispossessed, managed, planned, traded, worked, and developed with descendants who are part of that particular piece of land, and we have no idea. We have no idea, and so this is interesting stuff. How are we going actually going to address the disconnection that most of our people have to whether we even own land or not? How are we going to have our people participating in setting up these land management plans? Seventy-five percent, on the face of it, seems like a safe threshold, but, actually, I think we should be aiming higher. I am not saying that that is a legislative change for me personally, but I think I am trying to address—you know, there are opportunities here in this legislation, we are debating them, this is important, and I wish the Committee would debate them fully.

In my last time—and I welcome being corrected on this—I understand that my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s has tabled amendments. I do not know how to refer to these—on Wednesday, 5 July at 3 p.m. it has got “1” and “2”. I hope that is sufficient reference and I hope that I am right that they do fall under Part 6. I welcome correction. It has got clause 206, because I wanted again—OK, bear with me, clause 206, Meka Whaitiri’s tabled amendment. It goes down to clause 206(2). She is proposing to replace the words “As soon as practicable after making the decision, the governance body must—”. She proposes to change the words instead to “Within one month after making the decision,”. She is giving it a time frame and, on the face of it, the Green Party would definitely support this.

I would like to know what reasons the Minister in the chair, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, might actually have if he is planning on not supporting this amendment. I would appreciate an explanation as to why we would not think about putting an actual time frame on that particular clause, and I probably should outline that the clause 206 relates to “Requirements if governance body decides to hold land as Māori freehold land”. On the face of it, this seems good and the Greens will be supporting it. I would appreciate some insight from the Minister if he does not plan on supporting it.

Likewise, and again I will welcome correction, there is Meka Whaitiri’s tabled amendment No. 2, Wednesday, 5 July, clause 207. Again, just to capture the point, it puts a time frame. It replaces the wording “as soon as practicable after the sale” with “Within one month after the sale—”. On the face of it, I think it sets out clearer objectives for making those decisions. We would support that. I would really like to understand whether the Minister is planning on supporting that and if not, why. Thank you.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, kia ora tātau katoa, ā, ka mihi rā mō ngā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Chair; greetings to us all. I do acknowledge the contributions indeed.]

Can I just make a couple of opening points and then move towards addressing concerns raised by members. Firstly, can I say that so many of the issues that have been raised have actually been addressed by way of the select committee report, which was delivered to this House. In fact, as the Minister responsible, I have actually addressed pretty much most of those concerns because of the fact that I agreed with, and took up all the amendments from, the select committee. So that is the first point, which addresses many of the concerns that members are raising.

The second issue I raise is that much of this bill retains the general principles of the original legislation and therefore members are often going back and forward, arguing about the original legislation, etc. Actually, the bill retains in some ways many of the principles that are set out in the former Act.

The third point I would raise is this. There are a number of clauses, and some of the ones that are mentioned this afternoon are actually set against current legislation—we are lining this legislation up with current legislation or adopting principles that are already currently in legislation anyway for equivalent actions in other parts of law. People need to know that.

Fourthly, it pretty much helps if members read the legislation, because if I take the question about “owner” and the issue raised by Kelvin Davis, the issue of an owner is clearly defined in clause 7 of the bill. So rather than raise that, actually have a look at the bill because it is pretty much there.

If I can go to Meka Whaitiri’s concerns around clause 206 of the legislation and just clarify for her that a governance body can have subsidiaries to hold investment land but not Māori freehold land. The examples of that are Mangatū and Whakatū, which have been doing that sort of proposal for years.

The member also talked about clause 207 and asked some questions about that particular piece of legislation. I can tell the member that this is carrying forward existing legislation in section 137 of the 1993 Act. It says that you can sell Māori land only if buying replacement land, and it does not apply to investment land, i.e., non-Māori land. So again that is in the current legislation.

If I take and address the issues that Marama Davidson spoke to, in particular around Meka Whaitiri’s amendment, I can say that, talking about governance bodies and withholding requested information—I can tell the Committee that there is already a clear regime, actually, for this handling of information requests in the bill, based on equivalent regimes for local authorities. Again, there are equivalent regimes in other parts of law, so there is no reason actually to support that legislation and, for my part, we will not be.

Marama Davidson talked about clause 210 and in particular subclause 3(a). I can tell the member that in clause 210(3)(a), for purposes of clarity, a land management plan needs owner agreement. The equivalent is in section 137 of the current Act. It does not require owner agreement. Governance bodies do not have to have a land management plan unless they intend to sell Māori land to buy other land or improve other land or partition or amalgamate Māori freehold land, for purposes of clarity to the member. This is an existing regime, again, in the 1993 Act but has stricter requirements around it.

So I hope that addresses some of the concerns raised by the member Marama Davidson. It certainly gives the position in respect of Meka Whaitiri’s amendment and addresses some of the other concerns raised this evening.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This is a bill that is incredibly important, and so I too would like to comment specifically about two clauses and the relationship between those two clauses. Part 6 is about the powers, duties, and responsibilities of governance bodies, and I just want to highlight that a duty is a moral or legal obligation. It is a task that one is required to perform, so I am specifically interested in clause 202(1)(e), which reads: “endeavour to keep the owners informed about the asset base and activities relating to the asset base;”.

I would have thought that a duty, under this clause, should be more than “endeavour to”, because to endeavour to is to try hard; it is not a “must”. So the governors under this section are not required—I would have thought that they must keep the owners informed about the asset base and activities relating to the asset base. I just wonder why that duty on the governance body, which in some instances will not be the beneficial owners themselves—they may be the Māori trustee who has been entrusted by the court to undertake the duties as a governance body—is not “must keep the owners informed”. Would the Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, like to comment on that?

I am also interested in how they are going to do that. How are they going to keep the owners informed? Is that via an annual report? What sort of communication do we expect as a duty—as I said, a moral or legal obligation—of those governance entities to ensure that the owners are kept informed about the asset base and activities related to the asset base?

For me, it is specifically relevant to clauses 214(1) and 214(2), which are about the owners being provided with information. So that is the relationship between those two clauses. On one hand, we are saying that the governance entity has a responsibility to keep the owners informed, but in clause 214 there is an assumption that the owners have not been kept informed. So the owners have to go through a process to request information from the governance body or governance entity.

But, in addition to that, there is an issue I want to bring up for the Minister’s contemplation, and, hopefully, he can explain it. I will read it. Clause 214(4)(b)(ii) says: “notify the owner in writing that the information will be provided”—and here is the proviso I want some clarification about—“only if the owner pays a reasonable charge to meet the cost of providing the information;”. I do not think that is right. That is why I have asked him questions about the duty of the governance entity to keep the owners informed—because the assumption of an owner requesting information is that they have not been kept informed. Nowhere does it outline what we would expect to be a natural requirement of a governance entity—to inform their beneficial owners.

So I think there is an inherent conflict between those two particular clauses, and it would be really good to get some clarification. I have not put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. We may or may not finish Part 6 tonight, but if we have not, I have to say I think it is unreasonable, unless the Minister can justify why it is reasonable, for an owner to have to pay for information that they are legally entitled to.

That is why, going back to clause 202(1)(e), I also want to know what type of information and how often—you know, what is an acceptable level of engagement between the governance entity and the beneficial owners, because if there are any issues in this area, we still have an opportunity to fix them. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee. I noted that the Minister talked earlier about how all the amendments that the select committee proposed were adopted, but I seriously think that we have got a problem in this area. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I really appreciate the opportunity of talking to Part 6 of this bill. I want to just make comment about clauses 203, 204, and 205, and talk about the immunity that, obviously, kaitiaki and owners will have from personal liability. I just want to say that, from my experience being a trustee for Māori land, I have no doubt in my mind that, as a trustee, if I do something wrong, particularly if it is against the trust order, then I stand to be liable for that.

I just want to say that I do not believe that one who is appointed a kaitiaki for any Māori land should be exempt or be immune from any decision or any action that they might take in terms of the governance of Māori land, particularly if the actions run against the terms of the governance deed. We should not make any exemption for integrity, honesty, and, more importantly, owners having confidence in those persons who have been appointed as kaitiaki.

In so saying, I refer to the comments that my tuakana made in terms of Part 5, where he suggested a Supplementary Order Paper extending the 5-year requirement of previous misdemeanours being extended to a 10-year period. I can understand why he proposed the amendment. However, he was obviously not successful, although I supported his Supplementary Order Paper. As a previous speaker highlighted, under clause 202 a governance body must hold and manage an asset base for the benefit of the owners, and that suggests to me that they are holding it on behalf of themselves, because when a governance agreement is established it becomes the legal owner. So, in other words, why would you have to put this clause in here unless it is intended that it also refers to the beneficial owners? That might be a question that the Minister may like to address later on.

As we look at the duties and responsibilities of a kaitiaki, again he or she is required to act honestly and in good faith. Again, if they do act in those terms, then why should they be immune to any adverse action that they might take? I want to raise that point, because if we look at clause 201—sorry, I have already mentioned that. I think that because it is Māori land, there should be no exemption to the requirement of kaitiaki or kaiwhakahaere, whatever you would like to call them, being immune to personal liability in terms of any action that they might take.

The other point that I want to make is in terms of clause 207, “Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land”, and, in particular, to subclause (2): “If a governance body sells a parcel of Māori freehold land, the body must,—(b) until the body complies with paragraph (a), do 1 or both of the following: (i) hold the net proceeds in a separate bank account for the benefit of the owners of the land:”—again, for its own benefit—“(ii) invest the net proceeds in 1 or more fixed term deposit products of 1 or more registered banks (as defined by section 2(1) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act …”.

There is no reference made in terms of a time frame for which they are limited to holding or investing that money, although in paragraph (c) it says “within 1 month after the sale, amend the governance agreement and send the updated agreement to the chief executive for registration under section 163.” That is only in terms of amendment of the governance agreement, but there is no reference to how long they can hold that money, in either a bank account or an investment.

The other point I wanted to make is in regard to clause 208(2), which says: “The governance body must, within 1 month after the partition, amalgamation, or boundary adjustment, amend the governance agreement and send the updated agreement to the chief executive for registration …”. I am not quite sure whether that means registration within the proposed Māori Land Service or registration with the land transfer office. My understanding is that if it is to be registered with the land transfer office, then it requires the title to be surveyed. No mention of that is made in that clause, so I just wonder whether, in fact, the Minister might take a call in regard to that.

My tuahine from the Green Party made special reference to management claims, and I think that the points that she made are quite important, because if land is going to be subject to a governance agreement, then there has to be a purpose. I suspect that—well, I would suggest that that would be the role of the kaitiaki. Again, the role that that person takes is very important, and should they not follow the requirements of the governance agreement, then again I say that they should not be immune from any wrong actions that they might take. Indeed, because of this immunity clause, you may see people encouraged to operate outside the square, so to speak, and so it may encourage them to do things that they would probably not normally do if it was their own asset.

Again, I emphasise the importance of having the requirements for a land management plan, and I have not said this before, but I certainly agree with this part of the bill. In terms of the disposal of Māori land, I am a bit reluctant to allow governance bodies or the kaitiaki or the kaiwhakahaere to sell Māori land, because I understood that the purpose of this bill was to limit the sale of Māori land. In fact, encouragement should be made to acquire more land by governance entities and to retain the titles in Māori land. But, again, the bill—particularly this part—makes no reference to the requirement that land should remain Māori land, other than the option for governance entities to be able to retain it in Māori land. Kia ora.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the Chairperson report progress presently. The Committee will then move to consider the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Chairperson report progress presently.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Progress to be reported presently.

Bills

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

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now turn to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. The Business Committee has determined that this bill will be taken as one question for the purposes of the debate, which will not exceed 3½ hours. The four-call limit will not apply.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): This debate will, I imagine, be a rigorous one. As the early debates on this bill will attest, this has been a bill that has been controversial, to say the least. One would have hoped—and I know certainly it was our hope on this side of the House—that we would have been able to find a position collectively where we were able to vote together on such an important piece of legislation, because, of course, we are debating today a fundamental redraft of what was groundbreaking and historic legislation in the original Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989. It was groundbreaking.

We had a hope that New Zealand would maintain its positon as world leading in the redraft that we are considering today, and yet, as this Committee stage will demonstrate, rather than working on the strong foundations of that original legislation, this piece of law is a retrograde step. In fact, it would have been my hope that rather than debating this new bill today—I would rather debate the original Act of 1989 and moved Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on this floor to improve that Act than debate what we have today. There was poor consultation in its drafting, particularly with iwi. There was a sense, really, of urgency in this drafting that has come through, which I do not blame officials for, but the lengthy SOPs we see today also, I think, stand testament to the fact that this law has been rushed. We cannot risk making mistakes when it comes to vulnerable tamariki—we cannot—and yet that is what I fear this bill will generate.

I want to begin my first contribution on the issue that has been the most controversial for the Labour Party, amongst many other elements of this bill, because there are a few things in there that we do support. The one issue that, on principle, has led us to vote against this entire piece of legislation are the elements of the “Principles” clauses that fundamentally change the relationship between the State and children and their iwi—fundamentally changes that relationship. I want to speak to that in my first contribution.

When we reflect on what made the original Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act groundbreaking, it was the acknowledgment of the range of elements that allow a child to thrive—the acknowledgment that when we have a situation where a young person or a child is not safe, there are certain things that the State should strive to achieve before we get to the point where a child is removed, and then certain things that we should strive for at the point that that horribly traumatic decision is made. Originally, of course, there were purpose sections at the beginning of the Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, but then, contained in Part 2, in section 13, “Principles”, it really set out the consideration that must be given when a child faces potential movement or housing under different circumstances.

It states in section 13(2) that, “In determining the welfare and interests of a child or young person, the court or person must be guided by the principle that children and young people must be protected from harm and have their rights upheld,”. I want to state that again: “must be protected from harm and have their rights upheld,”. And it is also in the principles in section 5 as well as the following principles. So we have, right from the outset—right from the outset in the original Act—the primary consideration being that a child must be protected from harm and have their rights upheld. Nothing stands as more important than those two principles in the original Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The reason this is important, I will come to.

It then goes on to state in the Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989, in section 13(2)(b), “the principle that the primary role in caring for and protecting a child or young person lies with the child’s or young person’s family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group,” and, accordingly, that they should be assisted and supported to, essentially, do the role that is there, and that intervention into family life should be at a minimum.

Then section 13(2)(c) states: “the principle that it is desirable that a child or young person live in association with his or her family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group, and that his or her education, training, or employment be allowed to continue without interruption or disturbance:”. And then paragraph (d)—this is where it really hits home—“where a child or young person is considered to be in need of care and protection”, where it is considered that they need to be removed from their home, “the principle that, wherever [possible or] practicable, the necessary assistance and support should be provided to enable the child or young person to be cared for and protected within his or her own family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group:”. There it is.

That was what was groundbreaking: the acknowledgement that a child does not exist in isolation, that if there is harm, that we suddenly prevent future harm simply by removing them and placing them somewhere else—wherever else. This law acknowledged that, actually, that had the ability to further traumatise a young person, and that if we truly wanted to make sure that we listened to all of the research and evidence, (a) we should do everything in our power to prevent a child being removed in the first place, and (b) if they were, whānau mattered. We had an obligation as the State to make sure we did everything in our power to make sure that a child was placed within that kind of environment.

So what was the problem that the Minister tried? Why have we redrafted this new law to remove that principle? Why? When you ask the Minister, she states that she thought it was more important that a child’s safety was the paramount consideration. She blatantly misunderstands the law. The law always said that a child’s safety came first; their rights came first. Then, when it was possible and practicable to place them within whānau, iwi, or hapū, that was our next obligation. The Minister redrafted the law without understanding how the law was meant to work in the first place, and if that was not what was happening on the ground, that was a problem with practice, not with the legislation.

I absolutely agree that there have been issues with practice. There has been a risk aversion, I think, amongst some, because we have created such a risk-averse environment for our social workers, so much stress and pressure around them, that there is a perception that if you place children within whānau, then perhaps you do not need to do the same level of rigorous checks, with the same level of support placed around those iwi and hapū placements. That was the problem, not whānau or iwi in the first place—that was the issue. Not nearly enough support was provided to them.

I have seen cases where we have had family members who suddenly have a child placed in their care and then they will not hear from Child, Youth and Family for months—months go by. This will often be a child with high needs. There is no respite, there is no support, there is no guidance, there is no anticipation of what the long-term plan is—there is nothing. The Children’s Commissioner identified it as a “dump and run” problem, and the Minister’s response has been to blame whānau. Well, that was wrong—that was patently wrong.

Our view is that a bill that does not contain a “whānau first” principle—as this bill does not—is a bill that fundamentally fails children. It fundamentally fails to understand what helps them to thrive in spite of trauma. It fundamentally misunderstands the importance of their cultural connection. It fundamentally misunderstands the trauma of removal from a family in the first place. We stated from the outset, and we continue to state today, that we cannot and will not support a bill that takes such a retrograde step right at the first mark, right at the first test.

I can tell you that when Labour is in office, we will not preside over a Ministry for Vulnerable Children; we will preside over a ministry for children—Oranga Tamariki, the ministry for children, children’s well-being. We will reinstate the “whānau first” principle. We will put children and family at the centre of that ministry. We will do everything in our power to have a ministry that focuses on supporting whānau so that children are never removed in the first place. That should be our ambition and goal: prevent the trauma, prevent the harm, and put that right at the beginning. That is why we will be opposing this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take my first call in this, the Committee stage of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. There are quite a few points to cover in this debate, and I do want to share the concern that has already been raised about process. We yesterday got a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on this bill that is almost the same size as the legislation itself, almost 100 pages. This relates to legislation that guides practice where children’s lives are at risk, and we are being expected, within one day, to absorb this information and consider what it will mean in practice. I have to admit, I do not think that is possible. I spent hours going over this last night, up till very late, trying to work through it, to understand the implications of these changes, and I have many questions that I hope the Minister for Social Development will be able to answer for me. I will start by outlining some of those questions that I have, so bear with me.

One of the changes in this SOP 329 is the change to the complaints system so that it is amending—the existing language in the legislation is providing direction for what should be considered in coming up with a complaints system. No detail, no guidance, which is a bit of a problem, but the things that should be considered. This adds the wording, from where it was previously “complaints mechanisms”; it now adds in the wording “1 or more complaints mechanisms.” So I want to know whether that is actually opening up the possibility for a constraint on what will come out of this, by saying there may be multiple and this will apply only to one, whereas the initial implications of the legislation would have been that it applied to all of them, if there were multiple. If that is the implication, I would like to know the rationale for it.

I would also note that in new section 4, “Purposes”, inserted by clause 6, there has been the removal of the phrase, that the purpose of the Act would be adding to the establishment and promotion of services—there is the removal of the language of assisting with the establishment and promotion of services and facilities. That seems to me to be consequential—that if it is restricting the purpose, which in previous legislation had included facilities, just to services, is this now constraining the role of the new ministry in a way that is actually more limited than what we had seen previously, to the extent that there will not be the assisting of other organisations in setting up services or facilities and there will not be any role for them in looking at facilities? That seems to me to be something that the Minister should stand up and speak to and, at the very least, explain to this Committee.

I also notice that in one of the sections where it currently talks about assisting families in the prevention of children and young persons from suffering harm, it deletes the phrase “the risk of suffering harm”. That seems to me to be, actually, a sensible removal. It was not there in the original legislation, is my understanding, so that seems sensible. But again, I really think it is something that we should be able to have explained to us, because the explanatory note in terms of the bill does not provide the explanation. It just tells us very, very broadly what it is doing.

I do have a question about two points in the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). We are told that “Clause 21 amends section 18B to ensure that it applies in relation to decisions that a child or young person is in need of care or protection on certain grounds made before the commencement … for consistency with other provisions in the principal Act.”

My concern—and there is another provision, a completely different point, that is the same thing—is that this is undoing a change that was made in the select committee. We were given advice that we should have the specific language that this is amending, and now it is reversing that decision and taking it out, and in two cases in this SOP. It undermines my confidence in this whole process. This is happening very quickly, without proper debate or scrutiny, and I am not seeing the rationale for it. It worries me.

I also would like to understand, because I do not understand, the difference around the transfer back to the Youth Court. There is a change in the language and the ordering of the language, but I do not actually understand what difference it would have in practice and in meaning. It just seems to be a kind of reordering, but I would actually need some explanation to understand it, because it does not make sense to me about why we are making that change in an obvious way.

There are other points as well, but I am conscious of the time so I will move on to some of the discussion, but I really do hope that the Minister will engage in some discussion about the SOPs, and explain them to this Committee so that we can understand and at least have a token, cursory look at being able to do due diligence in ensuring that this legislation and the way it is written will actually provide for what we need.

I would like to speak now to some of the changes that are being made to the purpose clause, which have already been mentioned in concerns raised by Jacinda Ardern. I will leave the discussion around the changes to the “whānau first” principle to my colleague Marama Davidson. It is an area of significant concern to us in terms of the process leading up to this, as well as a concern that we may have undermined the clarity of the purpose of the legislation with the changes that are coming in this legislation.

I also want to speak about another two points in relation to the purpose. One that the Law Society raised concern about is that we are adding complexity to a piece of legislation that they suggested had bedded in over time and that we needed, in terms of practice and surety in the courts—and so many cases do go to court. That certainty plays a really important role in decision making, and this risks undermining the surety of practice. We do not know what some of the outcomes will be in the court, particularly when we add words like “safe, stable, and loving home from the earliest opportunity” into the purpose of the bill. How will the courts define “loving” in a legal sense? I do not think that this is a concept that has been introduced into our legislation before, and this was questioned by quite a few submitters—whether it is appropriate to be in here. We all want our kids to be loved, but is it appropriate for us to ensure, through legislation, that they are loved? I am not convinced. It just does not seem appropriate, and other submitters agreed on that point.

We were also challenged by some practitioners and by Child Poverty Action to include in the purpose a more general duty on the Government to ensure that all children and families have adequate income to meet their basic needs. If we were looking at being really aspirational and really brave about actually doing the best for our kids, then we would include that.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Of all the issues that we debate in this House, when it comes to children I would have thought that the Government of the day—particularly this Government—would have aimed to try to unify all the parties, to try to get it right. There is unanimity in this House about ensuring that our children, our young people, the future generations of our families in this community—our country depends on them. I would have thought that that would be the priority. Yet, again, when you look at this bill, it smacks of cost cutting. It smacks of arrogance, because the Government does not recognise that our children have potential. It smacks of negligence, because it refuses to recognise that, yes, we do have some bad kids, but these children, our children—our collective children—have potential, and, whether we like it or not, they take over from us.

You will appreciate that I am not a member of the Social Services Committee, but when I skim through the legislation, it borders on reaffirming, again and again, institutional racism. That is how I read this bill. I want to acknowledge Jacinda Ardern, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, because we are deeply committed to what she said: the fact that it should not be about vulnerable children; it should be about children per se, children whom we know and recognise as the future of this country. The fact that the Government has removed the “whānau first” principle tells me so much about the arrogance of a Government that believes that one-size-fits-all is going to fix a problem that it cannot fix on its own. It requires united support from the rest of the House.

I want to draw attention to clause 4, “Purposes”: “The purposes of this Act are to promote the well-being of children,”—fine with that—“young persons, and their families …”. I want to ask the Minister why the word “parents” is missing from that statement. Why is the word “parents” missing from paragraph (c) and paragraph (d)? Why is the word “parents” missing from paragraph (h)? Why is the word “parents” missing from new section 5(1)(c), inserted by clause 8, in subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi)? Families do not have children; parents bear children. The fundamental unit of a family is parents and children, and even if you are removing children from parents and therefore you decide to discard the parents, those parents are going to have children. What about their well-being? When a Government agency removes children from parents who may not know what wrong they have done, how do they fix their problem? We have an obligation, do we not, to look after the parents as well, to ensure, firstly, that they recognise they have done some harm and, secondly, that they are given tools to help prepare them either to receive their child back or at least be prepared to be able to teach and pass on good things to the next crop of children that they have.

So I am asking the Minister: why is the word “parent”—I would have thought that it is so fundamental to getting things right that it would be placed in throughout this piece of legislation. I want to ask the Minister also: the legislation refers to “family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups” in that section, but if we go to new section 5, “Principles to be applied in exercise of powers under this Act”, subsection (1)(b)(vi)(D), it makes reference to “cultural identity”. The principle of “whānau first” has been removed from this. I would have thought that that was a key principle that should have been retained in this legislation. Doing away with that tells me that this Government does not care about the diversity within our communities.

If my youngest son were to be removed from me, my greatest fear is that that young son of mine would be raised by another family that does not share my spiritual values, that does not share my language values, and that does not share my genealogical values. When it comes to Samoa, we speak different languages to Māori and other members of the Pacific community. We also belong to different villages. I would have greater confidence that if a son of mine was to be removed—I would prefer, first and foremost, that he is given to a brother or sister of mine, the immediate family, before he is offered to the extended family. If nobody in the extended family is able or willing or meets the certain conditions of the department, I would prefer that he is given to the extended family that belongs to the village grouping or the district grouping.

There is so much that is missing from this legislation, by omitting the differences in culture, language, and spirituality, that it tells me that this legislation is going to reaffirm institutional racism and practices that will then mean these kids get to be treated as if one size fits all. It does not recognise that at 16, many of these young people, in a Pacific sense, will know how to speak Samoan or speak Tongan, will know certain values, and will know the roles that they play.

Young men—for Samoan, o le taule’ale’a. Young women—for Samoan, o le tausala, o le taupou. Ia malamalama le tamaititi i lona gafa—her genealogy; his genealogy. That will not be able to be shared by that young person if placed in a different family. Again, by omitting a vast amount of cultural values in this legislation, it tells me that this Government is prepared to dump any of these children with any family. It reminds me of what the Palagis did with the Indians: removing families’ children. It reminds me of what the Australian Governments did with the Aborigine children. They are trying to make them into something that they are not, and yet the problem that we are trying to resolve here is about keeping children safe. That was always in the previous legislation, but I think what has happened here is that much, much more has been removed, because the Government, in my view, when it does these sorts of things, is looking at a shortcut. It is looking at throwing up lines that might seduce some people, because it is election year.

But I say again, this is one matter—this is one issue—where it would be to the benefit of this Government and the benefit of this country if we just worked to try to unify and find the common values and the common intelligence of the whole House, rather than depending on one Minister’s belief.

In clause 4 it says “mana tamaiti”. Most Pacific Islands believe in the mana of young people—of mana tamaiti. Whilst Māori also believe in that, I would say that Pacific needs to be specified. If this Government believes that it is Māori and Pacific kids who are usually in trouble, then why is it that we do not specifically mention recognition of the specific and different languages, cultures, spirituality, and genealogy? That is where these kids will find support and grow a sort of sense of who they are. Simply removing them from their first families—from their parents—and placing them anywhere they choose is not going to give those children confidence. It is not going to give those children a better understanding, in terms of who they are and their place in this world, and certainly in their place in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I thought I would take a call at this point to address a few of the issues that have been raised. First of all, I want to talk about the Green Party member Jan Logie’s speech, where she talked about the concern that some submitters had on this bill around the certainty of existing law. I want to say to her that there is one certainty of the existing law, and that is that it does not serve well the young people for whom it was designed, and for whom it should be operating to protect and enhance. I have that on good advice from the young people themselves. So that was the certainty that we entered into this discussion. And, yes, I know it is always difficult for lawyers when we change the law, but too bad. They are going to have to get used to a new law that actually focuses on the children first—on their needs, on their views, and on what is best for them—and they are going to have to come along with this.

The second thing I want to say to that member is: why are we scared in this Committee to talk about the fact that every child is entitled to be loved? Actually, I am not scared to say that, and I have put it in the legislation: every single child is entitled to be loved. One thing is very clear: we are not afraid to say that that is their right. They have the right to a safe, stable, and loving home at the very earliest opportunity, and this legislation is designed to get in and work with families as early as possible.

I refer a couple of the members to a very, very important clause. It is in Part 1, clause 8, amending section 5(1)(c)(i) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act,: “the primary responsibility for caring for and nurturing the well-being and development of the child or young person lies with their family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group:”. That underpins the legislation. That underpins the reason why we are changing the legislation to include everything from prevention through to transition into adulthood. The core of our communities is family. The earlier we can get in and work with and support families, the more chance we have of realising my vision for this service, which is to have no children needing to be in State care. That is what this whole Committee wants. That is what these young people up in the gallery want. It is their lives we are talking about, not any of ours. It is their lives we are talking about, and those of the young children to come. So let us be very clear.

Secondly, I want to talk to the previous speaker who resumed his seat, Aupito William Sio. He said: “Why didn’t this Minister get all the parties agreed?”. My question to that member is: which parties is he talking about? Actually, it is not about us in this House. It is not about politicians; it is about young people and children. That is who it is about. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure that their voices have been involved in the development of this legislation, and we have legislated to make sure that their voices are involved in the development and the operation of this new ministry. We have put legislation in place to say that they are entitled to a say in what happens to them as individuals, and what happens to this organisation that is being set up to work with the most vulnerable in our communities.

Let us not be afraid to talk about the most vulnerable, because they are among us. Yes, we have over a million children. They do not all need the State in their faces. They do not all need the State looking to support them. But some of our children do need extra special support for them and their families, and we should not be embarrassed about saying that. I do not understand why we want to coat it in sugar-coating and dress it up as something else. There would be 800,000 or 900,000 children who do not need the State anywhere near them and their families, but there is a significant number that do need that extra support, and this bill is about how we provide that in order to make their lives successful and give them the opportunity.

I absolutely reject—and it is a 30-second soundbite to say that we have removed the principle of whānau first.

Hon Members: You have.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is absolutely embedded into this. It is absolutely embedded into this, the principle that I have just expounded. I have just said it.

Jacinda Ardern: Which clause?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Part 1, clause 8: “primary responsibility for caring for and nurturing the well-being and development of the child … lies with their family, whānau, hapū”—

Jacinda Ardern: That’s already in the legislation.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is not. That is new. Do your homework. Do your homework. That is a core part of this piece of legislation. The core part is that when a child has to be removed from their family, first of all, you have to make sure that they are safe. If you listen to the young people, they say that the next thing they want is to be with their brothers and sisters. They want to keep their brothers and sisters alongside them. The next part they say is that they want to know who they are and where they belong. So if they are Māori, they want to know their iwi, their hapū, their marae, their whakapapa. They want to know that because it is part of who they are, and we have put that in this bill.

Hon Member: Where?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Read it. Read it. It is there. And to the previous speaker, Mr Sio, I would say that it is there for the Pasifika as well. It is an essential part of what makes up the identity of young people. I say to the Opposition: get on board. We are determined that young people and their views and their interests are at the centre of everything that happens in this ministry. And you have got to put aside your adult agendas and get on board with these young people, and make sure that we support them and we give them every opportunity for a great life.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): It is highly offensive when a Minister stands up in the Chamber and tries to infer that she is the only one who cares about the well-being of children. I am of no doubt that the Minister does care, but I am of no doubt that everyone in this Chamber cares about the well-being of children. We just have different ideas, actually, about how we are best going to respond to their needs.

I want to touch on the Minister Anne Tolley’s comments about children needing to be at the centre and about the well-being of children needing to be paramount. No one disagrees with that. I have a concern, though, and that concern is that the Minister thinks that that only pertains to this ministry. I am not even sure that she has got it completely right here in this legislation.

But I want to give an example, and that is that she is also in charge of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). There are a set of principles that guide the Social Security Act. We put an amendment forward to say that we should amend those principles to include a principle that is about ensuring that every policy in the Social Security Act is about ensuring that the well-being of children is paramount. Did the Minister think that children should be at the centre of policy then? No, she did not. She thinks that that pertains only to the Vulnerable Children Act and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill, and nowhere else. When we are talking about the well-being of children, we need to also put them at the centre of any housing policy. But does the Minister agree with that?

Hon Members: No.

CARMEL SEPULONI: So how can we possibly be looking after the best interests of children when we have such a narrow view of where their best interests lie? That is the first thing that I want to point out about the flaws in what Anne Tolley is talking about.

She has talked about the fact that the legislation was not working. Well, I sat through those submissions, as did quite a number of people in the Committee today, and a lot of the submitters actually pointed out that there were good things in the original legislation. The problem is that it was never operationalised properly, for a number of reasons, as has been pointed out in the Committee through interjection, not by the Minister. The culture of the department has never been attended to or addressed. There have been issues with regard to resourcing, and if it is underfunded, how do you possibly realise all that was already in there? Because of the underfunding and the under-resourcing, you have overstretched staff. You do not have professional development offered to staff who are in very important positions and need that professional development. So there are issues with the ministry, which do not necessarily translate to the actual legislation, that that Minister still has not responded to. Yet she thinks that by tinkering with the legislation, all of those things are going to be fixed up. I do not have the confidence that that is going to be the case.

I am like every other New Zealander in that recently we heard the story about Isaiah Neil, the 8-month-old child who was left in the car while his parents and his grandmother were doing synthetic drugs. He ended up dying in that car. The really upsetting thing about that, as if that is not upsetting enough, is that the family had made eight to nine complaints to her ministry and nothing had been done. That child had been left in that dangerous situation, and the Minister is trying to say that the formation of this new ministry, and her tinkering around the edges, is going to stop that from happening. Well, we can guarantee, unfortunately, Minister—we do not want to have to say this to you, but it is not going to stop it from happening at all. And that is upsetting to all of us in the Committee, actually.

I wanted to spend most of my first 10 minutes, actually, talking about an issue I have spent the best part of 6 months talking about—I have gone a little bit off track, so I am going to have to take another call. But that issue is around data collection. I am really concerned that we are heading down the wrong track again and that the Minister, who ignored the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns on data collection through MSD with regard to the individual client-level data collection, is again ignoring the Privacy Commissioner’s advice with respect to this bill.

We should be concerned. If we put it into context in terms of what happened the first time that Minister ignored that advice, then we are all very aware, because it was very public, that what we ended up having was a system for data collection that had to be shut down and an overall Government agenda that had to be put on hold because, actually, the Minister ignored the advice of the Privacy Commissioner around the importance of making sure that that security portal for collecting, holding, and sharing information was safe. She went too fast and she ignored the advice.

It was not just the Privacy Commissioner who had warned against it at that time; it was the social services, the clients of the social services, and Opposition political parties. Then, of course, there was the breach in January, which the Minister was never informed about, then there was the Privacy Commissioner’s report, and then there had to be another breach for the Minister to finally say: “OK, stop. Hold up. Maybe the Privacy Commissioner was right. We’ve moved too quickly. This isn’t safe.” Now here we are, in the same situation again, and the Minister is ignoring the advice.

The Privacy Commissioner’s submission on this particular bill was very clear, in that he said: “the information sharing provisions contained in clause 38 have been developed without adequate consultation, are complex and fragmented, and will be harder to understand than the current legislative regime.” His view on this is that “as currently drafted the information sharing provisions in the Bill will not deliver the intent of improving information sharing, and may make things worse for some of the most vulnerable.” Is that the track that we want to go down, particularly given that the last report we got from the Privacy Commissioner to the Minister on data sharing was absolutely right? Yet here we are, ignoring his opinion in this case.

It was not just the Privacy Commissioner who raised concerns; it was also the Children’s Commissioner who raised concerns about the data-sharing provisions in this bill. In fact, the Children’s Commissioner said that “there is a significant risk that families could withdraw from government services as a result of fears about their information being shared.” That is the last thing we want to happen. We have already had a family who could make eight to nine complaints to Child, Youth and Family about a vulnerable child who was potentially in danger and who eventually ended up dying, and here we have the Children’s Commissioner telling us that families might not even come forward to share their information because of the fact that this will put them off doing that. That is similar to the concern that the Privacy Commissioner had with regard to MSD’s overall individual client-level data-sharing agenda, in that he said, and clients said, and social services said, that, actually, the risk is that people will be put off from accessing the support services that they need.

That is why I have put up an amendment about this, which tidies it up and, basically, gets rid of the fragmented, complex, and extended compulsory information-sharing that could potentially cause harm—as has already been said by the Privacy Commissioner—because we do not want to go down that track. I for one—particularly given the Privacy Commissioner’s good track record on this—want to take on his advice here, because it is too risky not to and there is too much at stake. I would like to hear from the Minister about why she thinks, in this instance, the second time this year, it is worth ignoring the Privacy Commissioner’s advice on something as important as this—children—and why she thinks that it is putting children at the centre to ignore this really valuable advice on data sharing.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I will just very quickly answer the questions. The member is a little mischievous to compare the two. One is about professionals who are concerned that a child is at risk of being harmed, sharing the information that they have about that child and their family, with the attempt by the Ministry of Social Development to collect individual client-level data.

Yes, I have had several discussions—many discussions, actually—with the Privacy Commissioner and with the Children’s Commissioner on this particular issue. In fact, we traversed this when we were setting up the Hamilton children’s team, and the Privacy Commissioner did a lot of work on our behalf, trying to develop the approved information sharing agreement (AISA), which is what he is proposing that we have in this piece of legislation. In the end, no one other than Government agencies has signed up to that AISA, even to today—2 years down the track—no NGOs. In fact, I have letters from NGOs saying that they were not prepared to sign up to that.

Now, I do not know about that member, but I have been to a number of meetings over the years following a child’s death at the hands of a family member, where, in a room with a whole lot of groups of NGOs and Government agencies, everyone sat around and worked out that they all had a different piece of the jigsaw puzzle that made up that child and that family’s life but no one had the whole picture.

So the idea of this bespoke information-sharing regime is that when a child’s life or well-being is at risk, that group of professionals is able to share that information if it is in the best interests of the child. They will be protected. The example that I give is—and we have had it before—where a child is at serious risk and the health professional sitting at the table has very pertinent information about the mental well-being of one of the family members, often the parent, and is afraid to share that information because there was an unclear gap between the Child, Youth and Family legislation and the Privacy Act.

What happened was the children were the ones that missed out because that information was not shared—an important piece of information if you want to make changes to support that child and their family. So I reject the assertions that I have run roughshod over the Privacy Commissioner’s advice. I have worked with him very closely to try to achieve something that he would be comfortable with. In the end, it did not work for the children on the ground and, again, if you have got a child-centred system, you have to go with what is in the best interests of a child.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I think I am going to take a quick call for my first call of many. I just want to highlight, firstly—there are a few genuine questions that I would like to ask the Minister for Children in my first call. I think I would like to highlight one of the major issues, first—and it has been highlighted in the first 45 minutes of this debate—and that is the absolute ambiguity in the legislation about the priority for the child. The reason why it is highlighted is because we have got the Labour Party members standing up and disagreeing with the Minister, we have got the Greens standing up and disagreeing with the Minister, and we have got the Minister standing up and yelling at the Labour Party and the Green Party about how they should read the bill.

Now, if it was so clear—if the priority was so clear—then why is there so much ambiguity and argument? One of the major issues with that is that if we are sitting in here and cannot even decide—with it in front of us—what the priority is, the clear priority, how on earth is a caseworker going to be able to do it on the ground? That is the problem with this legislation, and it is highlighted.

I think one of the other issues is that there is a mixture of the definition of the principles of the legislation and, like I said, what the priority of the legislation is or what the priority is within the legislation. There is a lot of talk about the principles and how you are supposed to approach things with the legislation. But, until it is clear and—look, there is no denying that the Labour Party, the Greens, and the Māori Party as well, and our party too, have different angles on this, and have different thought processes with which we address this issue. But all of us want it to be clear what the priority is. We might have different priorities, but we need to ensure that we know what those priorities are. It all rolls downhill. If we cannot get it right here within 45 minutes of looking at this legislation, I do not know how caseworkers on the ground will be able to do it.

I am just looking at the part the Minister talked about—I just want to highlight what I am talking about—new section 5(1)(c) set out in clause 8. I could go through that whole page. I have highlighted: “the child’s or young person’s place within their family … should be recognised, … (i) the primary responsibility for caring … lies with their family, …”. That is not clear. In (ii) “… child’s or young person’s relationship … to whakapapa should be considered: (iii) … belonging, whakapapa, … group should be respected: (iv) wherever possible, the relationship between the child or young person … should be maintained and strengthened:”. I mean, the list goes on; this is an issue. I am going to be taking different calls throughout the debate, but I think that underlying—whether we can sort that out and ensure that we have a clear priority. Even if it is something that all of the other parties disagree with, the Minister needs to be clear about what the priority is.

The second question that I want to move on to, and I have noted that in new section 5(1)(b), it talks about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). It says: “the well-being of a child or young person must be at the centre of decision making that affects that child or young person, and, in particular,—(i) the child’s or young person’s rights (including those rights set out in UNCROC …”. I am just wondering whether the Minister can answer whether the new legislation—with the new way that the 17-year-olds are going to be included in the youth justice system—is going to be in line with all of the principles of UNCROC, because, under UNCROC, with the youth justice system versus an adult justice system, the UN and UNCROC state that the youth justice system must be totally separate—100 percent separate from the adult justice system. That is not in line with what is written in new section 5(1)(b)(i), inserted by clause 8: “the child’s or young person’s rights (including those rights set out in UNCROC …”. Those rights are not being met. I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, if the Minister can address that.

I have got a couple more questions. In new section 276A, inserted by clause 104, which is moving into the youth justice area, it states: “(2) The District Court or the High Court must transfer the proceeding back to the Youth Court to be dealt with in that court, unless the interests of justice require the proceeding to remain, and be dealt with, in either of those courts.”

I want to ask the Minister what part justice plays in that. Why is it different? Is this saying that there are different parts that justice has in the adult court versus the Youth Court? Why is that a consideration? Why is it not a universal consideration? Why is justice not a universal consideration, whether it be in the Youth Court or in the adult court? Will this new legislation allow 17-year-olds not just to be transferred to the courts, but to be involved with the Police Alternative Action plan? I think that is unclear in here, as well—whether they are going to be dealt with just within the court and whether the Youth Court can transfer them into the Police Alternative Action programme from the police, through the family group conference plans, and how that would work, and whether that is the intent of this legislation.

I have got few questions for the Minister, but, lastly, in clause 107, which inserts new section 284(1A), it lists the considerations of the court: “whether to transfer a proceeding to another court for sentence or decision under section 283(o), in addition to the factors in subsection (1), the court must consider and give greater weight to all of the following: (a) the seriousness of the offending: (b) the criminal history of the young person: (c) the interests of the victim: (d) the risk posed by the young person to other people.”

They are quite clear. There are four of them. The question is why and how the adult court and the Youth Court provide different things for those four things. Why would they have different results for the seriousness of the offending, the criminal history of the young person, the interests of the victim, and the risk posed by the young person? Those, surely, are the four main things that both courts should be considering at the same level. I will leave my questions there, at this stage, but it would be appreciated if the Minister could answer those questions. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I want to speak briefly in response to some of the comments that the Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley, made around changes to clause 13 and the “whānau first” principle. The member Darroch Ball is absolutely right. If we are wrong, then almost every single submitter to our Social Services Committee misunderstood the Minister’s intention with this legislation. So I want clarity on that.

Beforehand, though, I want to begin by acknowledging the incredibly important role that the Youth Advisory Group that worked alongside the Minister—the contribution it has made to this legislation. There are elements of this bill that the Labour Party wholeheartedly supports, that we wish we could vote in totality in favour of, if other elements of this bill were not letting it down. But those parts are so important—things like extending the age of care and protection, things like putting the child’s voice at the centre of decision making, and things like the establishment of VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, which should be well supported by every member of this House. Elements of this legislation, I have to acknowledge, and we acknowledge, are a vast improvement. I would not want our opposition to other clauses to diminish that, so I want to state that and thank the group for the incredible work that they have done and will continue to do.

But we do have to have clarity on some of the really important principles that are set out in the beginning of this legislation, because they will fundamentally change the way that we work on the ground, with families in particular. The Minister claimed that the “whānau first” principle had not been removed. Why, then, in the departmental report does it acknowledge the many submissions that talked about the removal of the “whānau first” principle? It even quotes the Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley submission, which states: “the bill removes the section 5 ‘whānau first principle’ that requires consideration to be given to how a decision will affect the stability of a child or young person’s whānau, hapū or iwi.”, and of course, indeed, the degree to which priority is placed on placement with them. There is no dispute about that being the position of many submitters in the departmental report.

The Law Society, in its submission, reading from paragraph 108, stated: “New section 13(2) removes reference to some principles from the existing legislation that are protective of Māori children. These include the principle that, provided children and young people can be kept safe from serious harm, priority should be given to family, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group as caregivers and that, only as a last resort (when children cannot be kept safe by family, whānau, whānau, hapū, iwi and family group) should other non-kin placements be considered”. The Law Society noted the removal of that principle. Was it wrong too, Minister?

The Children’s Commissioner, in his submission, at paragraph 14, stated: “There are many positive additions in the Bill that affirm the role of whānau, hapū, and iwi. For example, the new section 5(d) makes it clear that decisions about tamariki and rangatahi Māori must recognise the whakapapa and whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū and iwi … These new elements, while referenced at the start of section 13, do not clearly and adequately offset the removal of the priority for kinship care placements as described in the Act … In my view, the Bill as currently drafted could lead to whānau, hapū, and iwi being excluded from decisions about where to place a child who has been removed from their usual caregivers.”

The Law Society, the Children’s Commissioner, the Labour Party, the Green Party—almost every single submitter recognised the removal of the “whānau first” principle.

Hon Member: And the Māori Party.

JACINDA ARDERN: And the Māori Party—all of us. Minister, are you stating that we are all wrong? Every single one of us is apparently wrong. If we are, I would welcome that. I would welcome being wrong if we have missed something. I would welcome you standing on your feet and telling me how this bill keeps that priority. Because, Minister, what we would have liked to see is this: a simple set of principles and purposes that say the primary things we must consider, if a child has to be removed—has to be removed—and we have done everything we can to prevent that. First is their safety—their safety. Second is their rights and their views—what they want for their life, what they want for their future, and where they want to be. Third is whānau placement. If we can do it under those circumstances, it is what the young person wants, and it can be done safely—whānau placement. Why is that not set out in the legislation? Why is that not what we codified? Why was that removed?

And finally, Minister, no one in this House will disagree with the concept of loving and stable homes. But this is the law we are talking about.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I am delighted to stand and refer the member—[Interruption] No, the member is not wrong. All those submissions were made, absolutely, and I have had conversations with iwi all around the country who were concerned. I said to them that it was never the intention, and that I was sorry that the bill was not clear, and so we made changes.

So I refer the member to section 13(2), inserted by clause 13, in Part 1: “(i) if a child or young person is removed from their home, decisions about placement should—(i) be consistent with the principles set out in sections 4A(1) and 5:”—which are safety, their wishes, all those things that the member listed—“(ii) address the needs of the child or young person; and (iii) be guided by the following: (A) preference should be given to placing the child or young person with a member of the child’s or young person’s wider family, whānau, hapū, iwi, or family group who is able to meet their needs, including for a safe, stable, and loving home: (B) it is desirable for a child or young person to live with a family, or if that is not possible, in a family-like setting: (C) the importance of mana tamaiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and whanaungatanga should be recognised and promoted: (D) where practicable, a child or young person should be placed with the child’s or young person’s siblings: (E) a child or young person should be placed where the child or young person can develop a sense of belonging and attachment:”.

I have to say that those words were carefully worked through with the iwi leaders group, which is satisfied that we have represented well in the legislation that “whānau first” preference.

Carmel Sepuloni: The Minister consulted after the fact.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: But we have changed the legislation, which is why you have a submissions process, in order to make the changes, to make this piece of legislation work. So, on the one hand, I hear the members say “If you put it in and we’re wrong—”

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. I will resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I thought I would just take this opportunity to answer a few questions that Jan Logie posed earlier about the Supplementary Order Papers. Regarding the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 329 to section 4, in clause 6—“the risk of suffering”—this phrase was causing a drafting challenge in terms of the provision making sense. It was felt that the phrase “… assisting families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups to—(i) prevent their children and young persons from suffering harm …” sufficiently encompassed that concept of the risk of suffering. So it is no major change—just trying to put it in legalese.

Clause 21, which amends the provisions relating to subsequent provisions—there is a bit of a problem with the transitional nature of this bill, so that change is just to make sure that we can take account of any declarations made before the bill comes into effect.

Finally, the transfer of young people from the adult court to the Youth Court, talking about the interests of justice in the legislation—the provision now sets out that young people in an adult court shall be transferred to the Youth Court if their charges are reduced to Youth Court charges, unless the transfer is against the interests of justice. So it promotes, rather than diminishes, the likelihood that young people will be dealt with in the Youth Court when it is appropriate. So it is just a terminology change.

I think the last question that I had—I just cannot lay my hands on it—was there was concern that we had changed something from the select committee’s recommendation. That is not the case. Again, it is just a wording issue.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Minister, for addressing some of the questions I had regarding this 100-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 329, which arrived with us yesterday. You have not spoken on any of the rationale for the other changes that it makes. That you have at least put on record now a couple of sentences relating to three of the points is, I think, something.

There are quite a few points I want to cover in a short amount of time. I would like to ask the Minister to explain to us the change around the complaints mechanism. My understanding of the bill as it has been reported back to the House is that it would establish “a review mechanism” for that complaints system “that—”, and then it had an entire list of 10 points. That has been changed now by SOP 329. So instead of “a review mechanism that—” it has changed to a review mechanism “that is intended to be—”, and 10 points has been reduced to two points: “(A) accessible and timely: (B) have the necessary capability …”, and an explanation of that. Then, instead of the other points, which were all in one list, now we have “for which 1 or more of the following are specified:”, and then there is a list that seems to me to be quite a significant change in terms of the direction in relation to that complaints mechanism. I do hope that the Minister will take the time and give the public the courtesy of explaining the rationale for that amongst the other Supplementary Order Papers at this late stage.

I want to touch on another point that the Minister made in earlier speeches. When we said that submitters had told us clearly that there was not necessarily a need to change the legislation, that there was a need to change practice, the Minister stood up and said: “Well, actually, the safety of our children is a clear need for changing the legislation.” Well, I would like to give the Minister some of the submitters’ responses to that and see what her response might be.

We were told that the intent of the initial legislation was that it was a liberal, positive piece of legislation, but then in the 1990s, and after that, there were changes to the State Sector Act and the Public Finance Act. This is from Professor Mike O’Brien, telling us that it had undermined the role and the ability of Child, Youth and Family to be able to respond to the needs of children and their families—that the Public Finance Act and the State Sector Act changed what was the core business of child protection, which was created originally in this legislation out of huge amounts of consultation with our communities, and that, basically, it changed the concept from what was good for the family and what children needed, to how much money we can get to provide that service out of the systems.

We were told that in the 1990s a $600 limit was put on support for whānau, and that then we had all the other systemic change happening in our society around benefit levels being set below the poverty level, around limited tenure in housing, and that that has created a huge amount of instability. So what we heard was that, actually, the model of practice was really positive but there were structural limitations put on the ability of social workers to be able to support families and children, and none of those points have been addressed in this piece of legislation. So although we are hearing all this pretty talk about being able to support children and their families and make great changes, there is a real danger that nothing will change in practical terms, in terms of ensuring that those families get the support that they need.

I would like to speak a little bit about two more points. One is around youth justice, and the other is around information sharing. We have heard of the information-sharing provisions and that the Minister has been in discussion with the Privacy Commissioner about this. The insinuation was that the Privacy Commissioner was on board with this. Well, I sat—no, the Minister is shaking her head, but that is right. The Privacy Commissioner is not on board with these changes. We heard from the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the Law Society, a range of women’s refuges, and community organisations who are absolutely, without a doubt, not concerned about adult affairs but concerned about the welfare of our tamariki and children in this country. They told us that there were several problems with this information-sharing provision in the Act. It was not developed out of consultation with the people who are doing the work. Actually, those people who are doing the work know what families need and what works for them.

I was at a social services conference in Christchurch where a professor of social work was telling us that all the social work literature tells us that the one thing that makes the biggest difference in terms of helping people change their lives is relationships—it is trust. Actually, when you put in information-sharing provisions like this, which would enable the State to compel almost anyone in New Zealand to give information about a child, a young person, or their family, we risk breaching that trust at the community level. That is what this legislation does.

Section 66 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act enables social workers to be able to compel people, against their ethical guidelines. We heard clearly from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists that they were really putting a line in the sand and saying that this is dangerous. They are saying that actually you cannot trust the information, and that the general practice for people, the protection in law, to be able to change the information and check it—that is not a normal part of practice, and we risk sharing bad information. We were also warned that this legislation is putting in an information-sharing provision ahead of the development of the operating model that it is going to connect to.

So we are in real danger of there being a mismatch between those two things. We were also told that it is complex and fragmented and harder to understand than the existing law, and we were told just last week, I think it was, by the Privacy Commissioner that it is a mismatch with the family and whānau violence legislation information-sharing provisions that will in all likelihood apply to these same families and children. So we are going to be in the situation where social workers are going to have to be choosing, I think, between three different information provisions created by these pieces of legislation and decide which one is going to work and gives them the most power. How is that going to make practice good?

We have heard from the Minister that we know that there are situations where everyone has had a different piece of the puzzle and we just need to make sure everyone gets the pieces of the puzzle. Well, the problem is not necessarily the fact that there is not legislation around information sharing. Often people have shared information but nothing has happened with that information because they have not been resourced to be able to respond to that information, or they are given information and they do not know how to understand it and they do not respond to that information, or they are given information and they do not trust the people who gave it to them so they do not do anything with that information.

Nothing in this legislation will change that, and that is how this stuff works on the ground. That is what we were told continually, and we are in this piece of legislation making things worse, and that puts children’s lives at risk. When we know, particularly to address the needs of tamariki Māori, that there is institutionalised racism built into all of our systems—there is no question about that—and that we will be sharing information that is loaded with that bias, is that going to increase the change of tamariki and whānau being stigmatised? I say yes. That is the information we were giving and we should not be doing that. We should be putting our efforts into building trusting relationships in our community and properly resourcing our organisations to work alongside whānau to be able to support them in a relationship of trust, because all of the evidence tells us that is what works—that is what will protect our babies.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to what is an incredibly important piece of legislation: the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. Firstly, I just want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Anne Tolley. I do actually think she has a genuine commitment to making the lives of our most vulnerable children better, and there are some very good things in this legislation in terms of extending the responsibility of the State, in terms of its support for some of our young people, particularly those who are in the State system up to the age of 25 years. The relevance of this piece of legislation, as highlighted in the Children’s Commissioner’s submission, is that it touches over 60,000 who every year are captured within our care and protection and youth justice system. One of the other interesting pieces of information is that 83 percent of prisoners actually have care and protection histories. So we need to get this right, and I would like to hope that this process is actually seen to be helping us get it right.

I would like to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper 333 specifically, because we genuinely want to ensure that this Committee stage debate has the potential to produce some amendments to this legislation that are going to better meet the needs, as I said before, of the 60,000 young people who are in our care and protection and youth justice system, whom this bill is incredibly relevant to. So what I would like to do, and it would be great if the Minister responded, is to amend, in clause 6, new section 4(1)(e)(i). Currently, new section 4 reads, and this is in the purposes of the Act, “(1) The purposes of this Act are to promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups by … (e) ensuring that, where children and young persons require care under the Act”—so this is their entry into the care and protection system—“they have—(i) a safe, stable, and loving home from the earliest opportunity;”. So what my Supplementary Order Paper wants to do is to extend that to read: “(i) a safe, stable, and loving home from the earliest opportunity, giving preference to placement with a member of the child’s or young person’s family, whānau, hapū, iwi, or family group;”.

Now, why would I want to do that? Well, actually, what I want to do is recognise that the child is not born without their attachment to who they are, actually—their identity. So they have a prior right; that word “preference” means that the whānau, hapū, iwi, or family group have a prior right to care for that child. So when that child’s parent or immediate family do not have the capacity to care for that child, we would hope that the State would have relationships wide enough to find somebody in that child’s whakapapa who could care for them.

I want to bring us back to the definition of “mana tamaiti (tamariki)”, which is in this bill, which focuses on the inherent value and inherent dignity derived from whakapapa. The other thing that I want to highlight is that contained within this bill is a commitment to ensuring that we uphold the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is about the preservation of identity for that child, and it outlines the State’s responsibility in three areas: to preserve that child’s nationality, that child’s name, but also that child’s family relations, which is their whakapapa and their kinship. So I would like the support of this Committee to include that in this bill, which will actually give effect to a lot of what the Minister spoke about before the dinner break.

The other issue that I would like to highlight and have highlighted in my Supplementary Order Paper is a change to new section 5(1)(b)(iv), inserted by clause 8. When I sat in on the Social Services Committee there was a particularly robust discussion and debate about this very section. At the moment it says—and I know I am going to need another call, please, Mr Chair—that the principles to be applied in exercise of powers under this Act are “(iv) mana tamaiti (tamariki) and the child’s or young person’s well-being should be protected by”—and the word in the Act is “recognising”—“their whakapapa and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group:”. “Recognising” means acknowledging the existence of or the validity of their whakapapa. What identifying actually does is make sure that we establish or indicate the whakapapa of that young person.

The robust debate we had within the select committee was the difference between what “recognising” is versus actually knowing what it is. My contention was that in putting “identifying” in there would compel the department to do a cultural assessment of that child so that we actually know that child’s whakapapa, we know their hapū, we know their iwi, we know their marae, we know where they are from, and we know which family and which hapū and iwi we need to work with to provide an alternative safe, caring, loving home for that child for whom, for whatever reason, their family, their immediate family, their parents cannot provide that.

Therein lies all the other changes that I want made—the “wherever possible”s and the “where practicable”s, because “wherever” is just an emphasis on the possible, able to be done or achieved; practicable, “able to be done or put into practice”. Well, you cannot put into practice putting a child with their whānau, hapū, and iwi if you do not know it in the first place, and therein lies the issue that I have with some of the words in this bill. This is because it says a lot about saying that as an organisation Oranga Tamariki is going to ensure that it places children with their whānau, hapū, and iwi, if their family cannot look after them, but you cannot actually do it if you do not know what that is. And you do not then develop, I believe, the opportunities for partnership with hapū and iwi to take some of these tamariki, because their actual family cannot and do not have the resources to be able to care for their own.

We know what some of those issues are. We know that some of our parents have drug and alcohol issues. We know that some of our parents do not have some of the skills to be able parent the child.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It is not exclusive to Māori.

LOUISA WALL: It is not exclusive to Māori, absolutely not. And, actually, if you look at Māori—I was just thinking about this before I came in—we have got Treaty settlements in the morning, and all those Treaty settlements acknowledge that Māori, like in Ngāti Tamaoho’s case, are virtually landless. But what does virtually landless actually mean? It means we do not have a tūrangawaewae, we do not have a home. We do not have an ability to stand on our tūrangawaewae and from there develop that sense of identity because we have a marae. Some of our iwi do not even have marae.

And that is the point. How do we help our whānau to create homes so that they are safe and loving for our children? Well, it is not by giving our children to somebody else to bring up. It is not by not ensuring that they have access to their birthright, which is their whakapapa, which is that intimate relationship to hapū and iwi. It is not a random process. So that is why I am hoping that the Minister and her officials, if they are not going to support it, will say why they will not.

The other very important part of the Supplementary Order Paper is making sure that we keep siblings together, because, again, in that particular new section 13(2)(i)(iii)(D), inserted by clause 13(2), we have got “where practicable”. It should not be “where practicable”. It should be a bottom line that we will never separate siblings. So I am challenging the Minister to remove those particular words, “where practicable”, from this bill, because under no circumstances should children be separated. At minimum, if they are removed from their families, at least they have one another and together those children have an opportunity to develop some resilience.

Carmel Sepuloni: They said that’s what they wanted.

LOUISA WALL: That is right. But “where practicable”, as far as I am concerned, actually does not make sense.

I will be taking other calls, because I do have another Supplementary Order Paper. I know that there are other people in the House who are incredibly passionate about this piece of legislation. So what I am hoping, Minister, is that you are taking some of these amendments at face value. We actually do want to work with you. We want to make this legislation work. I do not want our children growing up in the care and protection system, but if we are going to have a care and protection system, let us make sure that it is one that is inherently going to ensure the identity of our tamariki.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly, I just want to refer to a comment that Minister Tolley made before the dinner break about the need for this legislation because the previous legislation, in her words, is not working. I want to start my contribution by challenging that, because it is obvious to me, in my experience, that there are some amazing people who work in child protection, child support, and in the youth justice system. They are working really hard to ensure that our children are safe from harm, and when things are difficult for them they do the very best to ensure that our children are restored and placed in the best care. There are people working very hard for that.

But what I have to say is, I do not believe that the problem is so bad that we need to change the legislation. I think the real issue—and others have raised it—is around practice. I want to give you a practical example of what I mean by that. The social workers within Oranga Tamariki—what was Child, Youth and Family—work extraordinarily hard. They have huge caseloads with some very complex issues. But when we get situations where we have, within the legislation, the ability to have family group conferences—which, when they were designed, were world-leading opportunities to get key parties together to wrap around that child and put in place plans to support not only the child but the family, the parents, to actually parent that child better, and actually put in place all of those monitoring mechanisms, such as the nannies, the aunties, the people with vested interests in ensuring that child’s well-being. They were groundbreaking, the family group conferences.

The problem that we have today is that we do not resource them, that we have to wait for months for a family group conference to occur, and that when they do occur we are not getting the right people in the room because we cannot actually identify who they are. We have got social workers who are hampered in their ability to do a good job. How is that going to change with legislation?

After the death of a baby, a process was put in place called the child protection review panel, made up of members of community organisations and members of the community, which would spend some time every week reviewing those files that social workers had closed before an investigation could be completed. So at least there was a set of eyes on those children who may have gone under the radar. In terms of a notification, it may not have seemed sufficient enough to even warrant an investigation, so nobody would actually have gone out to have a look at that child. This panel was put in place because a child died because the practice was so poor. The community panel was put in place to monitor those notifications that were not investigated. The reason that was put in place was that Child, Youth, and Family could not resource that process itself, not with paid professionals, so it needed a community group to do that. So I go back to my point that before we look at changing legislation, let us look at what our current practice is or is not achieving.

Now, when we look at the changes that have been made and the proposed changes in this legislation, where are the voices of those people who are at the coalface? Where is the significant voice of not only social workers but Māori practitioners? One of the issues that has been raised in this is that of the children who come under the purview of Oranga Tamariki, 60 percent of them are Māori, so where are the Māori practitioners advising on this piece of legislation?

I want to turn to the bill itself. We have had lots of commentary about clause 4, “Purposes”, because, I think, there are some inherent flaws in there. When we look at the very first part of clause 4, “Purposes”, clause 4(1)(a), we look at the words “establishing, promoting, or co-ordinating services that—(i) are designed to affirm mana tamaiti (tamariki), are centred on children’s and young person’s rights, promote their best interests, advance their well-being, [and] address their needs,”. Why are we addressing their needs? Why are we not actually meeting their needs? Why are we not establishing what their needs are and actually meeting them? Why do we use words like “address”? Why are we saying in this clause “establishing, promoting, or co-ordinating services that are designed to”? Every single word in a piece of legislation has value. Rather than saying “co-ordinating services that are designed to affirm”, we must surely affirm. We do not need to design something to affirm; we must affirm. Why are we addressing needs? We must meet their needs.

We look further down to clause 4(1)(d), and the words are: “(including their developmental needs, and the need for a safe, stable, and loving home):”. I will address the safe, stable, loving home shortly, but “including their developmental needs”—what are the developmental needs of a child? Yes, probably a safe, stable, loving home. It would be nice if it was a warm, dry, affordable home. It would be great if the families—

Carmel Sepuloni: You mean, not a car or a garage?

POTO WILLIAMS: No, not a car or a garage. It would be great if families and beneficiaries did not have their benefits cut if they could not make an appointment, thereby cutting the potential for being able to feed their kids that week. Health needs—does that come under developmental needs? It certainly does.

Where in this legislation are the responsibilities of Oranga Tamariki to ensure that that family is supported to meet these needs, first and foremost—first and foremost? That does not appear to be in here. It is one of the big failings, not of the legislation but of the practice, that we are not wrapping services around those families, first and foremost, to address those needs. Government policy is actually leading some of these children into care, Government policy is leading some of these families into distress, so let us address that first before we start fiddling with legislation, because, let us face it, the previous legislation actually needed to be fully implemented first before we could say it had flaws in it.

I go back to my comment about family group conferences. It was groundbreaking when those were first instituted. When they are resourced properly, they work well, because what they do is they address the needs of that family to ensure that it can keep the children. They put in place all the community support that that family needs, but address it up front before it gets so bad that you must uplift that child.

The Minister’s own Chief Social Worker came all the way from Wales to work in New Zealand because of the process of having family group conferences. He said that it is such a good process, he wanted to be involved in the country that put it in place. You cannot tell me, Minister Tolley, that the legislation is flawed when your very own Chief Social Worker is saying that the processes that we have put in place, if they are implemented right, are actually going to do the job.

First and foremost, we need to look at ensuring that the family is supported to care for the child, that the parents are supported to care for the child, that the mother is supported, and that Government policy does not get in the way of that. That is our first priority. So when we are talking about the need for a safe, stable, and loving home, where is the Government responsibility to ensure that that happens? Let us face it, many of our homes are not stable—they are pretty chaotic a lot of the time, are they not—so what is the requirement? Why have we got this in there—“a safe, stable, and loving home”? Is the Minister implying that our families do not have loving homes? Is the Minister implying that we do not love our children because sometimes chaos gets in the way? I actually find that hugely patronising, and it goes straight to the heart of why we have to get away from legislation that carves us off in terms of our race, Minister. I am going to take further calls, but—

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I have put up a number of Supplementary Order Papers this evening in response to the legislation. Minister Tolley well knows that the Māori Party wants to be supportive, wants to work with the Minister, and wants to work with her officials to ensure that the new bill for Oranga Tamariki is purpose fit for our tamariki.

The Oranga Tamariki reminds us that health is not merely the absence of disease, but that oranga is the presence of all those elements that keep us well: spiritually, physically, emotionally, and culturally. Oranga Tamariki conveys the ultimate place-based solution. Home is not only where the heart is; home is about showing us that the most enduring changes occur when they are locally owned. I recognise Louisa Wall’s contribution, which talked about the marae—a place to stand. The Treaty bills that are coming tomorrow to this House—when your identity and your culture are ripped away from you, you flounder and are lost. That is what we have today in this country as a result of that happening, and now we have it as a result of it happening with our children.

We have built a new ministry called Oranga Tamariki, which is supposed to remind us that the social investment is best realised by taking an intergenerational approach—when it is passed down. Unfortunately, unwell things are being passed down in some instances, and families need support. But taking children from their families and placing them at greater harm has not helped them, and it has not helped their families. Yes, I understand why we are changing this legislation. We need legislation that is going to improve strengthening families, because when the child is in the heart of a safe, strong, strengthened family, they are at their best. That is where they thrive.

Just this week, we heard from a family whose children had been uplifted because the mother had been in a domestic violence relationship and the father was coming out of jail soon. She had not done anything wrong. The children were uplifted and placed with the other child of the family, who had been in whāngai care with another woman, because that child had formed a bond with her whāngai parent.

Well, we will take the two children off this mother, who obviously has no bond, and give them to this person, who has no whakapapa relationship whatsoever, and leave them there because they had formed a bond with this other child? It is ridiculous. And they will now be there permanently—for ever—and will never come home, despite the fact that this young woman has now had counselling and treatment. She has now undergone all of those things, and she has set herself up in a stable environment to try to be a better mother because she has bonded with her own children—funny that. And yet we still continue to take them, and now we take them from the birthing table. It is like you are for ever tarnished with your crime, and your crime might simply be that you did not have the capacity and the support needed when it was needed.

So we cannot support this bill. We have got a number of changes in these Supplementary Order Papers—and many of them have been articulated tonight—around the wording. The words “wherever practicable” or “should” should be “must”—we must go back to the family and support those children and put them back there. There are untold stories of children continuing to be sexually abused in the care of their foster parents while there were grandparents begging, begging, begging—

Ria Bond: And within their whānau.

MARAMA FOX: And within their whānau, yes. But they had parents and grandparents begging the State to “Please give them to us.” where they were safe. They were safe there.

Ria Bond: Not all children.

MARAMA FOX: They were. The children were safe, and they went off into foster care for 2 years, and an 8-year-old child was put into the Wiri boys’ home.

Ron Mark: Try 13 years, try 14 years.

MARAMA FOX: Well, I get it. I get it. I get it.

Ron Mark: Where was the whānau for me? Where were they? They turned their back.

MARAMA FOX: They did not turn their back. Our families who have the capacity and who love their children should be given their children. They are their children. A loving and safe environment and Māori families are not mutually exclusive—they are not. They are not.

So, yes, when you have exhausted all options, obviously that makes sense, but you have to be able to exhaust all options first, and if you have qualifiers that say “wherever practicable”—

Ron Mark: Then how can it be a “must”, Marama?

MARAMA FOX: No, I am saying “wherever practicable”—read the Supplementary Order Paper. Read the Supplementary Order Paper. We do not say “must” for everything. We have highlighted the places where we must consult and we must take into account. That is what we are saying. Just take into account—you do not even have to take it into account. “Wherever practicable” says that you do not have to bother if you do not think it is practical to do so. That is what it means. You put qualifiers around it. We are not saying: “You must always put them back here, in an abusive home.” You must seek out and attempt to find a safe and loving environment where they have a familial connection.

Those two babies who were taken from their mother—one of them had their first birthday; there was no contact, no phone call. She did not even know where they were. How is that continuing to keep identity and culture and familial relationships alive? It is not.

The people who put this into action—they are the issue. It was not the law. It was what goes on and puts it into action. There is no way we would want to see children continue to be abused, and to suggest that we would want that to happen is absolutely appalling—absolutely appalling. So qualifiers need to go. Qualifiers need to go, and not everywhere “must” you do things, but you “must” consult, you “must” look, and you “must” try to put children with whānau where they are safe.

Look, the Minister for Social Development genuinely, I believe, wants to do a good job with this. I recognise that in her when she speaks. And I do not want to be just arbitrarily opposing everything, because we actually need this to work—those are our children. All of us, all of them—Māori, Pasifika, and non-Māori; they are all our children, and they all deserve the best. If this legislation cannot provide them with the best outcome and the best pathway, then we cannot support it, because we have put face paint on a building and the same culture exists—take the kids, take the kids. Then we cannot go and complain about it because they are before the Family Court—well, they are always before the Family Court; they always are.

Then strategic partnerships, where it says “The chief executive must ensure that—(c) the department must develop”—rather than “seek to develop”—“strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations” to “better reflect a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” If you leave it as “seek to develop”, she may or she may not seek to do it. It will be up to the discretion of the chief executive, and we think that is far too much discretion. If you say the strongest possible wording, “must develop”, then it happens.

There are too many outs in this bill. There are too many provisos in this bill. There are too many qualifiers in this bill, and it detracts from the importance of the work. Our tamariki are the most important things in our lives, but without their whānau or a loving family around them, they do not thrive—they do not. We believe that they need to be strengthened. If you take those children off a terrible family and do nothing with this family, well, that has not fixed anything. It has not fixed the problem. It has kept the child safe—yes, it has—but those parents, or those young people, or those old people, may go on to continue to abuse or to continue to have other children in a family that they have not improved. Where do we provide the support? I hear the Minister talk about supporting families—there is nothing in this bill that talks about that. How do we provide for them?

The information sharing I will talk to, as well. The information sharing—the ministry officials themselves have said there is no mechanism to check the veracity of the information that is being shared. We are just going to trust that they are professionals and that they have got it right. Well, I am sorry, but how has that gone for us? How has that worked so far? It has not. We cannot trust the information when the system is inherently racist.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I have been sitting here listening to the discussion that has been happening in this Committee, and I can tell you that not all children are safe returning to their whānau. Not all children are safe. Not all children are safe from being sexually abused again if they are returned to the very family that did it to them in the first place. To look at that particular issue—that all whānau are safe, and all and all and all—which was brought up just before, is looking through rose-tinted glasses. Well, they are not. Not all whānau are safe.

Let us look at this bill. We have gone all over the place. We have drawn a long bow in the discussions that have happened in this Chamber today to do with this bill, and it is very clear—the Minister for Social Development is very, very clear—that this bill is child-centred. It is about making sure that young people who end up coming into the system are protected and that they actually have a say in the decisions about their future. If they do not want to return to their family, then who are we to say: “You will go back to your whānau because we think it’s the right thing to do.” Well, I am sorry, that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about respecting young people and their choice. That is what this bill is all about.

Talking about how social workers must know where to place young people when they come—with the whānau, the hapū, the iwi—well, hey, sometimes young people may not wish to even know that. We are sitting in this room, we are making judgments on behalf those young people, and this is not what this bill is about. We had four young people up in the gallery before we rose for dinner. They were the advisers to the Minister. Every time the Minister spoke, I looked at their faces, and I looked at their faces when other members stood up to speak about them, about doing things for them. This was their decision. They have been part and parcel of this bill from whoa to go, so who are we to get in and say: “Oh no, we think it should be this. We think it should be that.” “Where practicable”, “where possible”, “should”—yes, those are words that we need to have in this bill. “Where practicable”—we have to have those in the bill because it gives options. It gives an option.

I stand here and I listen to all the kōrero that is going on about how, yes, we want young people, young children, to go to safe and warm, secure homes. But then we start bringing in all the housing issues. This is about young people and what they want, their decisions—to make sure their voices are heard—and we keep forgetting about that. I sit and I am listening, and we keep forgetting about it. We keep saying: “Well, actually, this is what is good for you. This is what is good for you, because we reckon it should be.” Well, no, you are very, very wrong there—you are very wrong. We should respect—respect—the decisions of these young people. They helped to get this bill here. They were integral in actually appointing the CEO of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. They have had a lot of say in this, and we must respect that. That is what this bill is all about. I do not want to sit and listen to any more of that rubbish when it comes out.

I know. I have a family member who had her two children taken off her because she would not listen to us—her family—or to the police who said: “Be careful about that partner that you choose who has just got out of jail.” He has been in jail because he has had violent tendencies, he has been arrested for a number of violent actions towards children and towards women—and what did she do? She gave her children up for him. How fair is that on those two little girls? So when I see this—those little girls needed protection, and we looked after those little girls. We looked after them, but, in saying that, we were not the only ones. We were not the only ones whom these young girls could have gone to. There were so many other girls. These girls were not Māori—they were not Māori. When this happened the family set up and said: “We would like to have the children, if it suits—if it works out.” In this bill—it actually has it in the bill. If you read in the bill, in clause 13(2)(i), that is where it is. So there is the choice. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): In some ways, I almost walked out of here a few minutes ago. It is really interesting hearing a lot of people who have got a lot to say and are very passionate about what they think about how children in care should be looked after, and it is very interesting to hear even the Minister say that they paid a lot of attention to the youth group that was there as an advisory group. Well, surprise: I am a foster child. I still call myself a foster child. I work with fostering kids and have done for years, trying, in some way, to put back some of the things that I was privileged to gain from caring, loving New Zealand parents who took me into their home because my family would not, did not, could not—should have, listening to all the rhetoric I hear around here about the importance of whakapapa—

Marama Davidson: No, that’s not what we’re saying, Ron.

RON MARK: No, no, you had your say—take your call. Take your call when it is your time. Maybe try listening to someone who is a foster kid, who has gone through that, and who understands the dislocation—

Marama Davidson: That’s not what we’re saying.

RON MARK: Oh, I hear exactly what you are saying, in your politically correct, patronising overtones. So get this: it does not matter what we all think about the parents’ rights, the extended whānau’s rights, the extended, extended whanaungatanga that might be preached at us loud and clear. It actually only matters what is right for the child. That might well cut right across some adult feelings and hurt them, but that is tough—tough—because the only thing that matters is what is right for the child.

I was fortunate, unfortunate, depending on which month, which year, of my foster care I want to look at—and understand this: my last set of foster parents was unofficial; they just took me in. They were Pākehā—Audrey and Alex Horn. They took me in because I had nowhere to live. Yes, I had barracks in the army, but where did I go when I went home? My foster parents had packed up and moved out. I had been discharged from care at the age of 17, apparently an adult, capable of living on my own. Well, now you guys are saying we should raise the age of criminal responsibility because I should not have been living on my own, I should have been in care. Well, hell, I did, like tens of thousands of other foster kids like me.

They took me in, unofficially, and gave me a home. Why? Because they cared about me. They loved me. They were not Māori. They could not talk to me about whakapapa. They could not teach me Te Reo. The only thing they could give me was love—that was it. It is interesting, because when I joined the Labour Party, one of the people whom I admired was a chap by the name of Norm Kirk. Norm had only one thing to say: “People don’t want for much, they only want somewhere to live, someone to love, and somewhere to work.” That is the nub of this.

Care of the child is paramount, and I do not actually give a stuff about the bleatings and the whinings of some extended whanaunga who may or may not visit them once in a lifetime. Let me assure you, many of my extended whanaunga whom I live among now never visited me once—not once. Not once did they make an attempt to find out where I was, or my brothers and sisters. Not once did they come looking for me. The only thing they have got to criticise me for today is that I do not speak Te Reo. The only thing they have got to criticise me for is that I dare to argue back at them with a different view. Well, my view is built on life experience, and they gave it to me. They gave it to me.

What do I look on that is positive? I look on five sets of foster parents whom the State selected and who took me into their homes: the Duncans, the Seymours, the Wylies, the Fields, and the Thorburns—every one of them Pākehā. I could have been placed with a Māori family at the drop of a hat if someone had stepped forward. It did not happen. I know from the connections I have managed to attain since I came to Parliament that I have got family who love me dearly and who have taken me back into Papawai, taken me back into Hurunui o Rangi, and taken me back into Te Ore Ore. Now I know about my connections with Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Raukawa, Te Arawa, and Whakatōhea, and I am very, very, very proud of all of them, and particularly of my uncle Api Mahuika and my Ngati Porou family.

I have been able to learn that and pick it up, and feel the love and the generosity post my care in a way that I will for ever be grateful for. I will always cherish it and I will be proud of it. But in those days, from 3 years to 17, the only thing that really, really, really mattered was that someone would take me in to their home, give me a bed to sleep on, a roof over my head, three square—well, some of it was not always three square meals a day, but good meals, regular meals. Even if I had to go to school barefoot—which I did, at Pahīatua primary and at Hillcrest—it did not matter; I had Weet-Bix in the morning, milk on that, I had a cut lunch in my bag, and when I got home someone took an interest in my homework.

I will for ever be grateful. Why do I give support to these foster families, regardless of their race, ethnicity, the language they speak—Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Māori, Pākehā—the whole lot? Why? Because they care, and I will be damned if I will sit in this Committee and have every foster parent slammed and banged. [Interruption] Stop it there. The innuendo that comes out is “Oh, they all get abused.”—they all get abused. Well, hell, I got some hidings—yes, I did. But overall, when I finally got what I wished for—that one visit back home—and I ended up as a 15-year-old in Cannons Creek pub in Porirua, at 35 Driver Crescent, and I saw firsthand what my life could have been, I thanked God for the Department of Social Welfare, I thanked God for the system we had, I thanked God for those foster parents who took me in, cared for me, and gave me a chance. I also thanked God that people like Rex Hēmi, like Auntie Lu, Auntie Mihi, Auntie Mary, and even the guy that I battled a lot with—oh, shocking; God forgive me, his name has just gone straight out of my head.

Marama Davidson: Uncle?

RON MARK: No, Workman—Kim Workman. Kim Workman, despite our different political views on the justice system and other things, was the man who connected me back to Papawai, aided and assisted by Rāna Waitai, and I thank God for them.

But let us not lose sight of what is important here. We would have ended up supporting this bill, Minister Tolley, but for that little issue that we disagree on around the youth justice system, and a couple of other tweaks that are inappropriately focused, in our view, on iwi/whanaunga first. Sorry—it is about the child first.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Having heard that speech, I do remember the honourable member Ron Mark, when he first came into Parliament, reconnecting with his whānau. What a significant time and turning point it was, to reflect on the past that you have spoken to in the Committee, but also strengthening the future opportunities. But if this bill was right—right in a way that it provided the conditions where children at a younger age could reconnect—then what might that prospect afford? I have gone to a lot of youth justice facilities, I have helped a lot of children in care, and I too believe that “children first” matters, but the context matters as well. If this bill was right, surely there would be supports around the environment to ensure that those children who are identified as vulnerable can be provided for so that there is not mass fallout.

I do not know about any other member of the House, but I am but one of this House who has been contacted by many grandparents who, for whatever reason, have had to take on board—not had to, but actually felt a deep responsibility that they must take on board—their grandchildren or their mokopuna from the extended whānau who have fallen through the system, likely to be picked up by Child, Youth and Family (CYF), and they do not want them to get lost. We have had numerous debates in the House, Minister Tolley, about the lack of support for grandparents who are in this exact situation. If this bill was right, we would be recognising that in order to put children first, the context and the environment of their family and their whānau relationships would have to be supported, and it is not evident in the bill.

I have sat very quietly to listen to some very impassioned speeches. In particular, I want to speak to clause 12 and the duties delegated to the chief executive in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, and I just ask the Minister, if she takes a call, to give an explanation. I see in the new “Purposes” section, inserted by clause 6, that there is reference to the bill needing to provide “a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi … in the way that is described in this Act:”. What are those principles, as it relates to the bill? In terms of the delegation of those principles to the chief executive, are there sufficient checks and balances to ensure, at a high level and at a practical level, that those obligations are going to be upheld?

Let me explain. I listened to the member for the Māori Party, Marama Fox—I almost thought that that member was not sitting around the Government table by the way she spoke, but let me say this: but for the fact that the iwi leaders have been arguing for concessions in this bill, many of them on the back of a number of initiatives that they have taken off their own bat to enter into this space because they know it matters. It is about early intervention, making a long-term impact in this space. In terms of the Treaty obligations and those strategic partnerships, it is not a two-way approach. That is why I do support Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) No 332, which was tabled by my colleague Louisa Wall. What it will enable is that as iwi innovate in the space of providing services to support whānau and vulnerable children, and whānau in particular, they are able to innovate and then transfer some of those learnings into improving practices and relationships with the department.

From my reading of Louisa Wall’s SOP to clause 12, new section 7AA(2)(c), before subparagraph (i), inserting that new subparagraph (ia)—that is a really useful inclusion to the bill. What it will do is ensure that where innovation exists—and, let us face it, often innovation exists mostly outside of a Government department—in strategic partnerships where iwi are investing into this particular space, they are able to then put enough information, evidence, and learnings into the way that practices can be improved.

So I think that is what the intention of this clause is supposed to do. I am concerned and I remained to be convinced, Minister, that by delegating Treaty of Waitangi obligations to the chief executive there are not sufficient checks and balances, especially in so far as policies are determined, because, ultimately, this is where some of the rub is. If there is a fundamental challenge to Government policy in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, the only avenue that Māori have, often, to challenge this is to go to the Waitangi Tribunal. Minister, I know that that is not, certainly, the intent of many bits of legislation that come through the House, but this is where the difficulty is. It is incoherent, in my view, in terms of those delegated responsibilities. When policies may be challenged by iwi because they are not upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi there is no real remedy for iwi to challenge that, and it is almost taking the ministerial role right out of the picture altogether. I am really concerned, and, as I say, I remain to be convinced about this particular delegation.

The other thing is that it is unclear is, if iwi or Māori organisations are inviting the chief executive to enter into strategic partnerships, what is envisaged here. Take, for example, the fact that much of the funding coming out of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has now gone to Whānau Ora commissioning agencies. They are now superseding the space where once MSD was funding at a community level organisations that were supposed to support whānau and fill in gaps where there were vulnerabilities. If this particular clause is intended to create new strategic partnerships between, for example, a Whānau Ora commissioning agency and the chief executive, what does that mean in small communities that do not have the range of services there that can support vulnerable families? I am talking mainly about small communities—communities that have distances to travel to be able to provide the types of support. If we take one service, Family Start, and if we take how that then rolls out away from a main city centre into a more, sort of, semi-rural town or smaller communities, you can see some of the difficulties that will emerge. The strategic partnership with iwi will still leave significant gaps in the rest of the community.

I am here to say that while predominantly many of the children we are speaking about are Māori, there are some who are not as well. So what about the 40 percent who will not be captured by a Whānau Ora commissioning agency and may be in a small and remote community where the community-based essential services that are there to support them are not able to be provided, because MSD has transferred all that responsibility to iwi? I think that is, again, another challenge there.

I am concerned in terms of the delegations to the chief executive. It is unclear what the level of accountability of the Minister is, in terms of maintaining a higher Treaty obligation. I would really like the Minister to take a call on this and to explain it, because it has not been something that we have discussed in the House and it is something where, certainly, if there remain residual concerns of the iwi leaders that the Māori Party were not able to get across the line, this is an area where it would benefit the debate and the Committee, and the clarity of the intention of these delegations, for the Minister to take a call.

Finally, I want to come back to many a point that was raised. I never heard people attacking foster whānau. In fact, we need to commend those courageous whānau who are putting themselves out there and willing to take children who, for whatever reason, have nowhere else to go. I have not heard members in this Committee criticise foster whānau. What I have heard is that the lack of support given to foster whānau, and also the investment given to increase the number of foster whānau so that we can ensure that children are placed safely.

The other thing that I have heard, certainly in terms of where iwi are participating in this space, is that this is the area where there has been the most intensive investment to increase the number of whānau where whānau-based placements can occur. It is not lip service; it is a real thing, but you have to invest in it. You have to walk whānau through the process—what there is to support them and who the networks are within their community. One such initiative happens to be within our iwi.

Again, I will come back to my last comment to the Māori Party. It is unfortunate that in sitting around the Cabinet table you have not managed to achieve all the gains that were necessary—

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): It is an honour to take a call on this legislation, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill—my first call. I want to pick up both my colleagues Ron Mark and Nanaia Mahuta comments and make it very, very clear—and I take the point if we have not. So I will make it very, very clear: a big mihi—an ongoing, profound, and longstanding mihi—to all of the foster parents of the world who have stepped up to take in and care for children who were not born of them. It is one thing to be a parent; it is whole other thing to be a family to children who were not born of you, and that is happening to this day. It is not just happening through the Child, Youth and Family system. It continues to happen because it is an age-old strategic tool that humans have used since for ever, including Māori.

Whāngai, and the practice of it, has been with us as a deliberate, purposeful tool for ever. Whāngai has been a customary way of recognising our connection and our whakapapa when, perhaps, those birthing parents, for whatever reason, were not able to fully care for that tamariki. Whāngai is a centre point of how we have always operated and continue to, to this day. I think any one of us—not just Māori, but particularly our Māori—could probably put our hands up when we think about either who else we have had to welcome into our whare who was not particularly of our birthing process, or who we have had to ship out from our whare when we have birthed them. We all have this experience. It is a valuable one. We need to support that to happen more. That is what we are saying with this legislation.

We need to do everything and put all our effort into doing everything we can to make sure we can access safe whānau Māori, which is most of us. Safe whānau Māori is most of us. The narrative, and the implications that are ruinous through this legislation, is the narrative that implies that putting the interests and well-being of children first is separate from connecting them to their whakapapa Māori. That, actually, is the narrative, which is ruinous to all of Aotearoa and has been implied from the very introduction of this bill. So I will continue to make it clear: all foster parents—all loving, safe foster parents—are the heroes of the world, and we have Māori whāngai opportunities that we need to be supporting better.

That is why the Greens, too, disagree with the watering down of the “whānau first” principle. It implies that connecting and making sure that we exhaust all whānau opportunities is at odds with the well-being of tamariki Māori. As a House of Representatives, with the leadership and the power and the resources that we have here in this House, we must not be putting up ruinous implications that imply that whānau Māori do not love our tamariki as much as others do.

That is what this legislation has done. That is clearly what we have heard in the submissions. We also heard in the submissions—and I talk about one of the comments from one of our rangatira, Moana Jackson, who said: “Do you mean to tell me that we cannot find one whānau Māori possible for our tamariki Māori?”. Now, the problem is, perhaps, as my colleague Nanaia Mahuta has implied, that we have not created the pool. We have not created the support. We have not ensured that our system upholds the principle of exhausting everything we possibly can to keep our tamariki connected to their whakapapa Māori.

That narrative, that implication of whakapapa Māori being at odds with tamariki ora is ruinous. When we speak of the importance of whakapapa, we are making an explicit statement about the well-being of tamariki. That is what we are implying. He taonga te mokopuna!

[The grandchild is a treasured being!]

Mokopuna are the reflection of us. That has been the way we have functioned since for ever. Please, in this Committee, can we not imply that whakapapa is separate to our tamariki Māori well-being? It has been the way we have operated. A whole lot of processes came in and interrupted that—processes that we now have a job to try to help fix, but he taonga te mokopuna [the grandchild is a treasured being] has been core. That is why the language in the bill, such as “should”, “desirable”, and “where practicable”, is not strong enough. It does not imply that we must exhaust all possibilities. Absolutely, we want safe whānau Māori, and that is most of us.

With the remainder of this call, I wanted to focus on clause 93, amending section 238(1) and clause 94, inserting new section 239(2)(2A), which are around youth justice. Of course, we welcome extending the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds. That should have been a long time coming. The Greens welcome that. But in this big overhaul of the legislation, the Minister could not prioritise the best interests of young people who we know we endanger when we put them in prison with adults on remand. So this legislation had the opportunity to ensure that young people on remand could also be prioritised into youth prisons. But in this legislation there is the possibility for young people to still be sent to an adult prison on remand. It is apparently a resource issue. What the heck? We can fix that. [Interruption] Well, that is what the excuse apparently is—that it is a resource issue.

We know of the harm of young people being on remand, but here is another thing: how come the time counted for young people on remand is not taken off their final sentence, like it is with adult imprisonment sentences? I would really welcome the Minister’s explanation on that. What it is—17-year-olds being held on remand in youth units do not get the time counted off their sentences. So we have the Minister standing up to say that this is completely about prioritising the well-being of young people, but those outs in the clauses do not prioritise the well-being of young people.

I will end my contribution in this round by reminding us, again, that it should be incumbent on us to ensure that the practices and applications of the current legislation are working. We heard from submitters that that is more the problem than a legislative overview. The practice and application needs to be fixed and could be done so on the current legislation. Tamariki Māori can and deserve to be with safe whānau Māori, and that is the same as prioritising the well-being of tamariki Māori. Thank you.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I thought I would just take a call and answer a few of the issues that have been raised. Can I first address this issue that has been talked about by a couple of speakers now, that the current legislation is OK—that it just has not been resourced properly. While I have some sympathy for the resourcing issue and have attempted, while I have been Minister, to make up for some of that lack of resourcing and penny-pinching, the reality is that if you talk to the young people for whom the system is working, it is not working. The current legislation does not work for them.

Even something like our internationally renowned family group conferences are known all over the world. Many other countries copy that. The young people say: “Actually, the adults sit around the table and talk about us. Nobody talks to us about how we feel, what’s happening to us, and whether we think what’s being proposed is going to work. And, actually, we know all the people that are sitting round the table saying they’re going to do stuff for us, and we know when that’s true and when that’s not.” So even something as integral to our system as the family group conferences, the young people themselves are saying they are not effective for them.

I have never ever blamed the staff for that system not working. We had in Child, Youth and Family and now in the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki some passionate, great, professional staff who have done their very best. The system has become, over the years, so risk-averse that we know that those staff were spending less than 15 percent of their time with young people and their families and the foster families, and more than 50 percent of their time on administration. Now, that system cannot be right. It cannot be right. What is more, the expert panel said it is dealing with the crisis in a child’s life.

The cathartic moment for me was when I looked at that coroner’s report on those four young women who died, who had committed suicide, in Flaxmere. The coroner did an amazing job, bringing in child psychologists, going right back through the lives of those four young girls who were tragically lost. We looked at all the opportunities when a crisis happened in their lives and various agencies went in and out, but there was no one single point of accountability. There was no continuity for those young girls and their families. There was no prevention put in place.

Whenever a crisis happened and work was done to support the family and those girls, there was no ongoing support. What the expert panel said was if you can get in and work with these families the first time they come to the agencies’ attention, you have got a much better chance of preventing that family from falling apart and those young people needing to come into care.

We have to change the legislation in order to do that. We have to change the legislation in order to lift the age and to help and support those young people to transition into adulthood. It is silly to stand in the Chamber and say the legislation is fine, just put more money into it, because the legislation is not sufficient to support families early on, and support young people as they transition out. So that is the first thing.

The second thing I want to address is Nanaia Mahuta’s very good questions about the Treaty obligations and the requirements put on the chief executive. So in no way does anything in this piece of legislation remove the obligation of the Crown as a Treaty partner. But what it does do, and this is quite unusual—we have put the responsibilities for the chief executive into legislation, which would normally be in the conditions of employment. No other chief executive of a State agency has the robust requirements that we have put into the legislation. So we are very fortunate that we have an extremely able person who has taken up that role quite willingly.

We have also reflected that she is accountable for implementing those principles of the Treaty, and she has to report regularly on how she is putting them into effect. That means that we need to have some oversight of that, and we are working with the iwi leaders as to how that might be achieved. She also has to report annually and publicly on the targets that have been set for the changes that are made for tamariki Māori. The targets have to have been set and then she has to report against that, and she has to report how she has given effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

These are quite onerous responsibilities that are put on the chief executive, because 60 percent of the children in care are Māori. That has not changed much in 20 years, and we are absolutely determined, unashamedly, and have high aspirations to reduce the number of tamariki Māori who need to come into care and whose families need that ongoing support. I think that probably answers all the questions.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am kind of glad that I have had some time since my colleague Ron Mark got up and spoke, because it has given me a chance to dial down my heart, and also dial down my anger at what I have heard in some comments and feedback when members have taken their calls on this side of the Chamber. I think that as a former foster child, I can legitimately get up here and stand and talk about aspects of this bill that, yes, still remain ambiguous. The words “should”, “could”, and “would” are not, in my eyes, actually sustainable in the sense of our having a clear idea of exactly how the children who need this care are going to be looked after. So I support my fellow colleague Darroch Ball, who earlier, in his first call, identified and outlined to Minister Tolley that there are areas in this bill that are definitely ambiguous.

Probably what I want to talk about—and what dialled my heart up, actually—is putting children first, and having the iwi, the whānau, and the hapū being the first choice of preference that those children go back to. In the time since this bill was first read in the House, I was lucky enough to go along to the Māori women’s council and actually talk about this very concept. With the short time that I got to speak to it, I explained about the fact that, yes, I am a former child who lived in State care. From the age of 3, I was put into foster homes. The reason why I was put into foster homes is that the level of violence in my family was shocking. It was shocking. I do not think any member in this House would know what it is like to hide in your mother’s closet while you hear her being punched like a punching bag—

Marama Davidson: Oh, that’s a rough assumption, actually.

RIA BOND: —and to get up in the morning and find her teeth. It is not an assumption—it happened. So what I am saying is that it is all very well to get out there and give your opinion, but you do not actually know what happens to these children, and yet you try to push and say that they belong with their iwi and their whānau. If they have been the abusers, that child does not deserve to be revictimised and put back within the iwi, the hapū, and the whānau. I know of many children from my generation who are Māori and who actually have not had a chance to speak to this bill, where their voices have been lost. They would be speaking in contrast to what other members in the Green Party and the Māori Party have actually said within this debate.

Children want the time to get past the abuse. They do not want to be thrust back into their family. They do not want to see the very behaviour that can in some cases—not all cases—be seen as acceptable as part of the lifestyle and part of growing up. Māori children who have been abused by their family members, by their extended family, and by their community around them do not want to go back into those very homes and whānau that have abused them in the first place, and that is something that has to be respected. It is something that I do not think many people can actually get up and talk to.

Marama Davidson: That’s an assumption, Ria.

RIA BOND: This bill says—it is not an assumption. Everything that you have tried to pull comes back to the fact that if they do not go back to iwi, then this bill is racist. Well, that is rubbish. That is absolute rubbish. [Interruption] They are your words—they are your words, which you were reading in the House. They are your words.

What I am saying is this: it is all very well for some members in the House to criticise and say that children should not go to non-iwi families, but I actually beg to differ. Children need the right to be heard. They need the right to make sure that they can decide and work with adults and that they have the choice to go to a safe home.

I have had non-Māori foster care parents and I really enjoyed the upbringing that they gave me for the very short time that I had that. I valued that and I treasured it. It is just a shame that I cannot find them today to thank them for taking care of me when my family, my immediate hapū, and my uncles and my aunties did not have the skills to look after me. I was not ready to go back into the punching ring and see what was going on. Yes, I am a third-generation child of the system that still sees that happen today. That is what is wrong. That is what is wrong.

When the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act came into place in 1989—I remember it vividly. I remember it because it was pioneered as being the very Act that was going to help children like me, just when I was coming out of that foster care system. I did not rely on my family—I could not. They were not able to do anything that I needed in order to reconnect back with my tikanga.

I am in my—I think, actually, I will not say my age. Six years ago I went back to my marae. That is when I was ready, not when it was dictated to me by adults and by people who did not understand the victimisation of what I went through as a young Māori child, when my culture, actually, was the very culture that I did not want to belong to. That was my choice, made from what I saw. I think it is really important that it is established that just because you are Māori, it does not mean that you have to be placed back within your iwi, because that is not right. Minister Tolley, it is not right.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. I have heard in this House a number of times in the last 3 years this saying:

Hūtia te rito o te harakeke, kei whea te kōmako e kō?

Kī mai ki ahau he aha te mea nui o te ao?

Māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[Pull out the centre shoot of the flax, where will the bellbird sing?

Tell me, what is the most important thing in the world?

I will say, it is mankind, it is mankind, it is mankind.]

What we hear mostly is the last bit, not the first bit. So if you take the central root of the flax plant out of the flax, where will the bellbird call? Where will it land? So it is a metaphor for—in this instance, if you take part of the whānau out of the whānau, then it affects the whole whānau. That is the issue that I want to talk about in respect of everything that is in this bill and in respect of everything that we have heard so far, because here is the thing: we are coping today with the legacy of legislation from the past.

My big concern with this piece of legislation is that we are actually creating a new legacy for the future, and it is the wrong one—because it does not deal with some fundamental issues like historical and intergenerational trauma. So let us talk about that a bit, because, as my colleague Marama Davidson pointed out, when our Māori world view and our Māori world is interrupted, we get to cope with those traumatic experiences and then they get passed from generation to generation and we have heard it from members in this House tonight.

Now, that is created by coping with the legislation that we had at that time and right up until now. So it would be a mistake for this House to think that we could take the experiences of the past legacy and apply them to the future, because we will just be applying the flaws of those past experiences, and thinking that will solve the future. If we do not change now, nothing changes, and that is my biggest point on here.

I want to acknowledge, in particular, my colleague Louisa Wall, for her Supplementary Order Paper 333, because in addressing that issue of historical and intergenerational trauma, we have to make absolute decisions about how we are going to cope with what is happening with our families. Unless we deal with the real issues—because I do not subscribe to the notion that the whole whānau or one part of the whānau can develop in isolation to the rest of it. I will never accept that argument. So I feel for those who have had bad experiences in the past, but that ought to inform how we behave in the future. Unless we deal with the issues that our whānau are dealing with now—coping with or trying to cope with—and give them the opportunity to be in a position to look after their children, then we are just dreaming about what the real issues are.

I say to the Minister, around the resourcing—it is an issue; it is definitely an issue. It may be a bigger issue in making certain that—way too many of our families are living in absolute poverty. If we deal with that issue, then, in my opinion, we will create an environment for whānau to be able to look after their children. I am going to leave it there. That is my contribution to this bill. Kia ora.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to speak to the bill, and specifically in my comments I would like to address new paragraph (f) in section 238(1), in clause 93(2). Linked into that is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 331, which has been put forward by Jacinda Ardern. My late father-in-law had a saying that he would never let me forget, which was: “You measure twice and you cut once.” He was a carpenter. I do not think it was a saying that was unique to him, but it is a piece of common sense that says that when you are doing an important job you really take your time to size it up and get it right before it is too late to turn back.

I think, in the course of this debate, that that is what we have heard in speech after speech—that we are dealing with some incredibly complex and important issues, that across the Chamber there is a great desire that we do right by our kids, by our tamariki, but that on this side of the Chamber, certainly, we do not think the measuring has been done. Time and time again, when we come to the submissions, when we hear the comments made in speeches tonight, I think there is plenty of evidence that there has not been enough measuring, with this bill.

I want to turn to that in respect of section 238(1)(f) in clause 93(2). This is an interesting part of the bill, because clauses 92 to 109 are the ones on youth justice. It has been commented on by members on this side of the Chamber that in general terms the Labour Party is supportive of changes to the age of youth justice, ensuring that 17-year-olds, for the most part, are dealt with in the youth justice system.

My colleague across the House and friend from the Mt Roskill by-election spoke against that on the campaign trail. I think it is important that we are consistent in these matters. But in turning to section 238(1)(f) we have got a funny little inconsistency.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: You should hear clearly what I said.

MICHAEL WOOD: All I ask, Ms Parmar, is that we are consistent in what we say, whether it is on the street or in this House, and if we do that, we can hold our heads high.

If we turn to section 238(1)(f), this is the section that deals with young people on remand—17-year-olds in remand situations. We had a reasonably significant change at the select committee stage. If you look at section 238(1)(f), it states: “subject to section 239(2A), order that the young person (aged 17 years) be detained in a youth unit of a prison.” We then turn to section 239(2A), in clause 94, and this is where we have got the significant change. The previous wording we had was that the court “must not make an order under section 238(1)(f) for the detention of a young person (aged 17 years) in prison …”. That changes to “may make an order” subject to certain conditions.” So we have got a complete flipping of something that is quite important in terms of how we are treating young people who might be on remand.

There are a number of serious concerns that the Labour Party has got in this area, and I guess the first one—having crossed the Rubicon in this bill and recognising that we should, for the most part, treat 17-year-olds within the confines of the youth justice system—is that it seems an inconsistency that relatively late in the legislative process we have said that we are going to do something other than that in respect of remand.

The reasons for the original change are clear to most members of this House—acknowledging that not everyone agrees with it. We believe that it is most appropriate to treat 17-year-olds in the youth justice system in terms of their ultimate rehabilitation and in terms of our international obligations. It is a matter of record that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that we should not be treating 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system. Again, we commend the fact that in this bill, for the most part, we are dealing with that issue. So we question why we would, in this section—this change that has occurred in the select committee—open up our young people to be held on remand in adult prisons, all being where there are, I think, youth facilities.

What I also note, and this is more specifically as we make our way through the changes—I am turning now to section 239, in clause 94—is the scope that is provided here. In Supplementary Order Paper 331, in the explanatory note that my colleague Jacinda Ardern has provided to support the SOP, she notes that in the principal Act we do have some capacity to deal with this issue, and we absolutely require it in situations of extremis, in very limited circumstances—

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to the Committee stage of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that this debate is, by its nature, an emotive debate—and, actually, so it should be. We often talk in this House about how we are talking about the most vulnerable in our society. Well, actually, tonight I cannot think of a more vulnerable group in our society than these children. So if we are not emotive about this issue we probably will not be emotive about any issue ever.

I want to acknowledge all the contributions that have been made. I know that they all come from the right place, from everyone in this House wanting to make the very best legislation that we can, because of what is at stake if we do not get it right. It is in that spirit that I want to support the issue that has been raised about how this legislation treats the responsibility to do everything we can for whānau, iwi, and hapū to have their responsibility of taking care of their own.

I heard Ron Mark’s contribution, and I want to say I know how difficult it was for him to make that contribution. But I heard the hurt in the voice of that 3-year-old boy, in his contribution—I heard the hurt in that voice. The thing that it prompted me to think about was that I heard that little boy being angry about being abandoned by his family, by his whānau. That is what I heard.

So the question I want to ask the Minister and have her consider is: if we had legislation in place for Ron Mark that meant that the system did everything possible to connect him with his family and not have him feel abandoned by his family—what if the system was required to do everything it could to say to his whānau: “What do you need?”, “How can we make this work?”. Then, how much better would our colleague be feeling about the experience he had? That is the question I have, and I do not have the answer. I am not going to pretend to know all of the circumstances for Ron Mark and his whānau. I am not going to pretend to know that. It is not my business to know. But I am simply asking the question: how much more embraced would that hurt 3-year-old boy have felt if the emphasis was on the system making sure he did not feel abandoned by his family, where it could be made so?

I have not heard anyone in this debate say that 3-year-old Ron should have been forced into an unsafe situation. No one is asking for that to happen. What we are asking for is for this legislation not to let the system off the hook from not doing everything it can—everything we can—to connect that hurt little boy so that he does not feel abandoned by his family and his whānau. That is what we are asking for.

So I want to support all the Supplementary Order Papers that attempt to do that, because these are serious issues that we are dealing with. I do not want to be in a country where we end up one day apologising for the stolen generation like the Australians had to do. I do not want to be part of that. I certainly do not want to be a member of Parliament who sits quietly and lets that happen through this legislation, and I do not believe for a minute that the Minister wants that either. But if we do not get this right, if we do not put the requirement on the system to do everything it can to stop that 3-year-old boy from feeling abandoned by his family from the age of 3 to 17, then we have not done our job properly—and that, Minister, is what we are asking for.

I hope that we can take the politics away from the situation, that we do not get into a situation like some of the contributions I heard earlier, where members stand up and try to portray this side of the Committee as trying to seek things that we are not. I want to get this right.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I am delighted to be able to tell that member that that is exactly what we have put into the principles of this bill. So, first of all, if I take the member quickly through the principles on page 19, recognising that child and the best interests of that child are at the centre, around that is the family, the whānau, the iwi, and the hapū, and the responsibility to work with them to support them because they are an integral part of that child’s life. Then there is the further circle of recognising the connections of the child to the wider community.

Many of the young people have told me themselves that whereas their family might not be as close and as supportive as they would like and need, sometimes there is someone or something in the community that they are connected to, and that can be used. That is really what the principles in new section 5, inserted by clause 8, are setting out to explain. All of that has to be taken into account. As I said earlier in the Committee, the underlying principle is that it is the primary responsibility of the family, the whānau, the iwi, and the hapū to be responsible for the nurturing and the developing of that child. That has to underpin everything we do. The best place for every child is with their family. We must do everything we can as early as we can to ensure that we have strong and supportive families so our children can grow up successful and thriving.

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I want to speak directly to the issue that the Minister just raised, because she talked about doing everything within our power to make sure that that child is supported. Presumably, that includes within whānau, hapū, and iwi, because the Minister has repeatedly claimed that her new clause, as set out in the amended version of the bill, is, essentially, the “whānau first” clause that was in the old version of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. That is patently not true. It is patently not true for two reasons: firstly, the Minister herself, in March, made it very clear, and I quote from Twitter: “To be clear—we’re not going back to the drawing board. Through the select committee process some of the wording of the Bill may change but its intent won’t. We will not be reinserting the whanau first principle.” That was what the Minister stated.

So her claim that the “whānau first” principle is in this legislation is not correct; she has put something else in. I acknowledge, Minister, that you did make a change; you accepted the select committee argument. You have used the word “preference”, but there is a considerable difference to the word “preference” in the legislation that came back from the select committee and what was in the original Act. The original Act talks about not just placing the idea of whānau, hapū, and iwi first but actually resourcing it, doing everything we can to make sure it can happen. Simply saying “preference” means that you can do a quick search, see whether or not someone comes up on the system, and if they are not there, move on—move on. Even then, actually, we know that that is predominantly what happens anyway. But the legislation as it was drafted in 1989 went further than that; it put the onus on the State to make an effort to put support around whānau, hapū, and iwi—to do everything within its power not just to put preference but to actually put some basis behind the principle. It was not just words on a page. Now we have words on a page. We have lost the “whānau first” principle fundamentally. So that is what we object to, Minister, and that is what I wanted to clarify.

For the purposes of the moving speeches that have come from the members of this House who have been in care, the first thing I would say is that I do not make any assumption about any of the lives that anyone in this House has had—no assumptions. I do not do that for anyone outside of this House. We do not know each other’s stories—we do not know each other’s stories. So I would never prejudge anyone’s contribution as being from a place of privilege or a place of harm. They come from a place though, in most cases, of very goodwill. They come from goodwill, and I acknowledge that most members of this House—actually, I would hazard a guess and say all of us—want the right outcome for kids, for rangatahi; that is ultimately what we all want. We just have some very different ideas about how that is best achieved. That is probably the thing that defines this debate, rather than our intent.

Minister, there is another point I want to make, and it has been touched on by some of my other colleagues, and that is that, actually, the bill fundamentally moves us away from the old legislation of a minimalist State approach to an early intervention approach. We would argue that that has always been the basis of our beliefs: that, actually, early intervention is best—the idea of never having a child removed is best. But, actually, by using that language in the bill, we are moving some way on. And, actually, we never really codified what it means. The bill talks about it, but it does not tell us how. The threshold for intervention, for instance, has not changed. We are still waiting for significant harm to be done before we have any legal footing to move in to support a whānau. We have not actually talked about what it means to provide early intervention.

Minister, if I was going to say what the research tells us, that if we want to support any whānau from preventing it from being in a situation of harm or neglect—if we want to prevent that—the first thing we would do is make sure every family has the basics they need to survive, that they have the resources to provide for their family, and that they are not living in a state of material deprivation. That is the reason the children’s covenant that Judge Caroline Henwood worked up, which has been integrated into some of the principles of this bill and has been supported by iwi leaders, talks about making sure that we will strive to provide children with a proper standard of living. That is a fundamental, and yet that is the one principle that does not make this legislation.

We cannot talk about creating an environment of well-being and of making sure whānau, hapū, iwi, and family have all they need to provide for their kids so that we do not end up in a situation of harm, without acknowledging the best way to do that first and foremost, because the best determinant of child well-being is poverty and deprivation. Every time we have raised that in the House, members on that side have claimed that we are saying that families who live in poverty harm their children. That is utterly deplorable. We have never argued that—we have never argued that. But what kind of situation are you putting family in if you ignore the economic circumstances they live in?

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Sleeping in cars.

JACINDA ARDERN: If they are sleeping in cars and they have financial stress and pressure—that every payday is a choice between whether or not you are putting food on the table or a uniform on your child’s back—that causes issues for families. Of course it does. We would be ignorant to ignore that, and we would be ignoring the evidence.

Under a Labour Government, Oranga Tamariki will have a legislated obligation to care about material deprivation, because you cannot have families who are focused on well-being unless you care about poverty and deprivation too. We would make sure that Oranga Tamariki would have a board—a child poverty reduction board. It would have members from every single Government department on that board, who would have a legislated requirement to set targets to reduce the impact of material deprivation and harm on kids, because that is what a genuine focus of early intervention looks like.

Instead, the Law Society has pointed out in their submission: “It is unclear how the Bill is intended to intersect with the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 and the [overall] establishment … of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children,”. It also talks about how there is a need for “a complete redrafting … to ensure a clear process for early intervention and to ensure the government’s objectives are achieved. Instead, the Bill makes a range of complex amendments to the Act that will inevitably create difficulties, as the philosophies of the Act and Bill are in many respects inconsistent.” That is what we are left with. Again, I do not doubt the intent of the Minister, but what we have been left with does not achieve her goals. That is why it should have been drafted very, very differently and with a very, very different value set.

I want to finish my contribution by coming to something that Michael Wood was just speaking on. Yet again, to me, this speaks to the lack of aspiration in this bill. We have a situation where Youth Court judges now are frequently in the media commenting on how unsatisfactory it is that children and young people are being held in police cells, not just at the point they are apprehended but on remand as well. And that is unacceptable. The Children’s Commissioner rated it as probably the most significant issue in his contribution. In 2016 there was a total of 150 young people and children detained in police cells for more than 24 hours, and now what does this bill do? This bill allows us to put them in prisons as well—in prisons. It does not actually get rid of anything; in fact, it extends the ability to use those provisions. If we were truly aspirational, we would have got rid of it. Or even if we thought we did not have the resource to get rid of it straight away, we could put a sunset clause in it. But we are breaching our obligations with a clause that allows children—children—to be held in police cells.

Look, my father was a policeman. I remember one day being briefly locked in a police cell. It may have been a joke but even in that brief moment—in that briefest of moments—I saw what it might be like to be in a place like that, and it was pretty horrifying. I cannot imagine what it would be like for a young person to stay in there for longer than 24 hours. Those police cells are not made for adults to stay in for longer than 24 hours; and, in fact, they do not. They are moved on quickly into prisons and held on remand outside of a police cell environment. This speaks to the lack of resources within our youth justice system.

Minister, I want to finish, though, on a note of congratulation to you. I am so pleased that we see in this bill an increase in the age of the youth justice jurisdiction. That is an incredibly positive move—incredibly positive move. I do not doubt, and I accept that that—

Darroch Ball: You just said there was a lack of resources.

JACINDA ARDERN: I accept that causes resource issues, and they should be faced, but it is not a reason not to do the right thing, Mr Ball. But also I would say, though, that we are not being consistent if we increase that age and acknowledge that a young person is not an adult at that age, and yet we continue to hold them in an adult environment. That is inconsistent. So Minister, thank you for that. I know it would have been met with some opposition by your colleagues. I applaud your doing it, but we must make sure that when we give with one hand, we do not then lose with the other, and I am afraid that, overall, that is exactly what this bill does.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. Can I begin by acknowledging both Ron Mark and Ria Bond, and saying that it is not easy to tell a story of a family that you do not have a lot of time for in terms of the way they behaved. That is a very courageous thing, and is a significant contribution to this debate. But can I also say to both of my colleagues from New Zealand First that violence and an inability to properly support children is not limited to brown people. There are thousands and thousands of Pākehā families in our country who seriously abuse or murder or neglect their children.

This is not about parents who are not able to support their families; it is about what this entire legislation should be—that is, how do we get the best outcomes for every child who is born in our country? Let me refer the Minister to the evidence on that. She will have read it, I am sure, in her preparation for this legislation coming to the House.

The best outcomes for a child happen when they are born into a family, regardless of whether there are one or two parents and regardless of the parents’ gender, that wants that child—not necessarily planned, but wanted. That is an important step.

The next one is that that family has enough money to support the family, that they live in a home that is warm and dry and where they have security of tenure and they can afford to pay the rent or the mortgage, that one of the parents has a job that pays a fair wage, and that, as the baby gets older, they are able to access affordable, high-quality early childhood education and top-quality, free public education in their own community. That is the start of building the best contributor to New Zealand that we could ever want for every baby who is born, and there is nothing in this bill that does anything towards that. There is a lot that the current Government is doing that undermines that.

I think that is a real tragedy, because we have in this, the first new piece of Child, Youth and Family protection legislation we have had since the late 1980s, a huge opportunity to learn from the past, look at the barriers that we have, and say that we can make a real difference. This Parliament could make a real difference in the lives of every child born in our country. We have just missed that opportunity and I think that is a shame.

I know that the Minister has got every good intention at heart, but, you know, she maybe did not have the backing of her colleagues or maybe did not have the ability to be bold and visionary. I know that the Social Services Committee worked really hard on this. I know that every member of Parliament who has debated it has worked really hard on it. But we missed an opportunity, and maybe we might be able to take it in the near future.

There are two things that I think are missing. First of all, there is the topic that has been debated a lot tonight. There is overwhelming evidence both in New Zealand and internationally that if babies and children and young people stay connected to the safe elements within their family, they have better outcomes. The family that they are placed with if their own parents cannot look after them has to be safe. You know, for any member to imply that we would be putting kids in an unsafe environment is just dumb. No member of this Parliament would want to do that. No member of any party in this Parliament would do that.

The more connected a child or a young person stays with the safe part of their family, the better the outcome is. That principle should be in this legislation, because we have seen what has happened in New Zealand, for goodness’ sake, and, heaven alone, if we look across to Australia, we can see what happens when you have a culture that thinks it is superior to another one and, therefore, thinks kids are better placed with people who are not members of their family and who just happen to be white, actually. That is what happened in Australia. That is what happened in the past in New Zealand, and we should never commit that crime again. We should never deny children the basis of their identity.

Of course, children have to be safe. That has always been the founding principle of this—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman.

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

Hon RUTH DYSON: I was not sure whether you were hoping my voice would give up completely or not, Mr Chairman, but it is not going to. We should never deny children a connection with their identity—and the stronger that connection can be, the better—and we should never ever allow the children who are the Ron Marks and the Ria Bonds of today to be in violent situations either, and we can do both of those things. We can do them better than we have done in the past. So that connection with your family, regardless of whether you are Māori or Pasifika or Chinese or New Zealand - born Pākehā, makes a difference.

The second part is the issue I referred to earlier, and that is the environment in which we bring up the children. Where in this legislation does it link that vision that the Minister talked about of early intervention—of actually getting in early with a family to better support them to raise, in a healthy environment, their child? How can they do that when there is nothing in this that triggers early intervention and support? There is nothing about the link with truancy services. There is nothing about the link with affordable housing. There is nothing about the link with employment, or with support for travel. All the things that make people’s lives possible and make them able to better raise a child—nothing in this legislation does that.

So there is no point talking about early intervention if we see exactly the same threshold for intervention as in any other care and protection case, which is that the child is in harm. That is too late, Minister. I know that the Minister supports early intervention. Well, let us see it reflected in the responsibilities of Oranga Tamariki and in the legislation that we are debating. Let us make sure that children are born into warm, dry homes, that they have a family income that supports them, that one of their parents has a job that earns a fair wage, and that those children are connected to quality early childhood centres and a community school that gives them the best chance at education.

Another thing we might want to throw in, just for icing on the cake—we know that kids who are born in poor families do not have computers at home, so they miss out. The Minister used to be the Minister of Education. She will be well aware of that point, and she knows how much further behind kids are in the education system if they come from a poor family and do not have a computer in their home. They miss out on a whole lot of educational opportunities that other kids have. What is the biggest way to improve the outcomes in the quality of life for a New Zealand baby? It is to offer them the best education possible. Nothing in this legislation gives us that—nothing at all.

So, Minister, I want to reinforce the comment that Jacinda Ardern made, and that was to congratulate you on the change in the youth justice age. It is overdue. You have done it. It would not have been easy, I imagine, with some of your colleagues, but that step was taken. You won, and I think that is a thing to your credit. It will be your legacy in this portfolio.

We should have inserted in this legislation the requirement to deliver a proper standard of living for every child. That is a responsibility for the New Zealand Government to then deliver through a multitude of agencies. It would actually break the cycle. It would actually remove poverty as the driver of so many of the negative outcomes that it causes in our current society. The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger, so the challenges that people in low-income families face—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Not according to the evidence.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —are increasing and are getting more and more. We know the statistics, Mr Macindoe. Tragically—

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, not according to the evidence.

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is not a political debate; it is a factual debate. There are parts of this legislation that are very good, but, unfortunately, the fundamentals that will make a difference—the fundamentals that are evidence-based about what will give us the best outcome in a care and protection and early intervention system—are missing. So I am sad that we will be opposing this legislation. It is an opportunity that is missed for our country. It is an opportunity that is missed for future generations of our babies.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I would like to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 332. Just reminding everybody—the context of this particular amendment is related to new section 4, inserted by clause 6, the purposes of this Act, which are “to promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups by—“, and it is: “(f) providing a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi) in the way described in this Act:”. What my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do is to, I guess, provide more tools for the CEO’s tool kit and the CEO of Oranga Tamariki’s ability to fulfil duties of the chief executive in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi.

So the duty is a moral or legal obligation or responsibility of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, and what I am proposing is that under new section 7AA(2)(c) “the department seeks to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities, in order to—” to insert “assist the department in developing and implementing policies, practices, and services that are appropriate to advance and improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons, including those policies, practices, and services under paragraphs (a) and (b).”

New section 7AA(2)(a) says: “the policies and practices of the department that impact on the well-being of children have the objective of reducing disparities by setting measurable outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department:”. It is relevant because 61 percent of the children in care and protection are Māori. And paragraph (b) says: “the policies, practices, and services of the department have regard to mana tamaiti (tamariki) and the whakapapa of Māori children and young persons and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi:”.

The reason I believe this amendment is required is that, when we look at the relationship as it is outlined, it is to “provide opportunities to, and invite innovative proposals from …; set expectations and targets to improve outcomes for Māori children …; enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information …; provide opportunities for the chief executive to delegate functions under this Act …; provide, and regularly review, guidance to persons discharging functions …; agree on any action both or all parties consider is appropriate.”

It seems to me that the relationship outlined is a contractual one, and if the Minister and this Committee think that these are the Treaty obligations that the chief executive of Child, Youth, and Family, or Oranga Tamariki, has to exercise to provide a practical commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, then I think we have completely misunderstood the context and relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty of Waitangi is a constitutional document. That constitutional document, when we look at the responsibilities that the Crown has, is about partnership; it is about how Māori participate, and how we are protected within the public system. So ensuring the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki has to work with Māori to develop and implement policies, practices, and services is actually about how Oranga Tamariki is going to do the work that it needs to do to make sure that that 61 percent of children in the system who are Māori have their needs and aspirations met.

I would have thought, for example, that the chief executive cannot do this by herself; she will need a partnership with Māori organisations, which will include the iwi leaders and, presumably, other Māori who are interested in being involved in the care and protection of our children. So I think that this amendment then allows the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to develop an entity to have a formal relationship with. I do not think that can happen otherwise. I would have thought that we as a House, we as a Parliament, would want to give the chief executive the tools that they need to actually provide a practical commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. So I am hoping the Minister is going to support this SOP and see it for what it is, which is a contribution to the debate that I think adds value to this piece of legislation. I did not hear the Minister speak against it. She answered some questions that my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta brought up, but I think this is actually critical.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern talked about a board. Well, I think that there should be a board that is set up by the chief executive to help give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, because otherwise we are setting the chief executive up, actually. It would be very difficult for her to do her job, and I think it is broader than just reducing disparities. So we want to go from 61 percent to—I do not know—55 percent or 50 percent. What is a good measure? I mean, it is bigger than that. It is bigger than that. This is about how Oranga Tamariki is going to do the work that it needs to do in a culturally competent and a culturally appropriate way, to make sure that we get the outcomes that we are hoping to seek.

I agree, Minister, that we do not want our children in care and protection. You know, that is a shocking statistic—that 83 percent of the people in prison have got a care and protection history. We have got to stop it. It has to start somewhere, and we need to recognise that the institution itself is part of the problem. So I am hoping that you see this in the spirit that it was actually created.

Like my colleagues, I find this is an incredibly emotional topic to talk about. We talk about our whenua. When we have our Treaty settlements, this House is usually packed, and it is so emotional because we have to relive a lot of the horrific abuse that our whānau, hapū, and iwi have actually gone through. Well, that is the same mamae that we all feel about discussing this bill and the children who are captured within the system.

The last thing I would like to contribute is that earlier this year, as members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, we had an opportunity to visit Justice McClellan and the royal commission that the Australians have convened on institutional responses to historical child sexual abuse, and we have not really talked about the impact of what happens in the intergenerational trauma, which my colleague Adrian Rurawhe talked about. We also had an opportunity to visit with the Prime Minister’s office and talk about women who have had and have experienced family violence and talk about the practices that are developing in Australia. There, they are not taking the children away from women who are suffering from family violence, who may have drug and alcohol issues, or who may have parenting issues. What are they doing? They are supporting those women. They are giving them homes. They are giving them income. They are giving them the support that they need to be able to look after themselves and keep their children.

So I think that our response should be the same, and we should recognise that a lot of the children in care and protection—I think Marama Fox talked earlier about some of our women picking partners, and the blended families and the risk that that our tamariki face. But, for whatever reason, it is incumbent on us, I think, to support people through that process.

I can understand that there are certain times in a child’s life when we have not got the time to allow the family to rehabilitate, which is why, if they are given to the extended whānau and their hapū and iwi, there is a chance for them to come together at some point in time, because, you know, the whānau will be a whānau and they will gather at certain events. They will gather on the marae, so the relationship between the parent and child is not completely severed. It is not like an adoption.

I would just like, also, to contribute that the issue of historical abuse of children in care will not go away. I think it is completely interlinked with what has happened historically in our Child, Youth and Family system. I know that tomorrow, at 1 o’clock, there will be people gathering on the steps of Parliament, because it is about time that we as a country faced up to some of the historical abuse that happened in State care to children who were the responsibility of the State. To say to those people “You can go through a criminal justice system to get redress.” is actually a further abuse, I reckon, of those people in care, and it is the Government not taking responsibility, which it should do. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members, I am going to seek a little bit of indulgence as we go into quite a big list of amendments, and in order to get through them in, hopefully, better time, I will take them out of the normal order so that there is an ability to group them up for various approaches.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 342 in the name of Carmel Sepuloni to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to clause 38 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 59

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley, and the following amendments in her name, be agreed to:

in clause 12, new section 7AA(2)(a), after “well-being of children”, insert “and young persons”;

in clause 211, new section 18B(2)(a), after “specified ground”, insert “; and”;

in clause 118, new section 445F(1), delete “other”; and

in clause 118, new section 445F(4), replace “by a person” with “by an organisation or person”.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 59

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

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 337 in the name of Marama Fox to clauses 3B, 3C, 122A, 126, 126A, 128, 132, 133, and 136, and schedules 3 and 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

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

Noes 72

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): In order to expedite matters, can I ask for the next set of amendments, which are to clauses 6 and 13, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 338, from Marama Fox—does any party intend to vote in a way that is different from the way they voted in the last amendment? Right.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 338 in the name of Marama Fox to clauses 6 and 13 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for, and given what I have just been told by the Committee, the Ayes are 47, the Noes are 72. The amendment is lost.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of Louisa Wall to clauses 6, 8, and 13 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

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

Noes 72

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I now ask, with Marama Fox’s next set of amendments to clause 8, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 339, is there any party that intends to vote in a manner different from how they voted on the previous Fox amendment? A party vote is called for, and I declare that the result of the party vote is Ayes 47, Noes 72.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 335 in the name of Marama Fox to clause 8 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for and on the basis of previous comments, unless I hear otherwise, the Ayes are 47, the Noes are 72.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 8 be agreed to:

in new section 5(1)(b), after subparagraph (viii) insert:

(ix) endeavours should be made to provide the child or young person with a proper standard of living:

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

Ayes 47

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

Noes 72

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 334 in the name of Marama Fox to clause 8 is out of order because it is the same in substance as Louisa Wall’s amendment previously considered by the Committee.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 336 in the name of Marama Fox to clause 12 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for, and, unless I get an indication otherwise, I will declare that that amendment is lost, 47 to 72.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 332 in the name of Louisa Wall to clause 12 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for, and I, with the absence of dissent, am declaring that that amendment is lost, 47 to 72.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 340 in the name of Marama Fox to clause 38 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for, and, with no one disagreeing, I am declaring that the Ayes are 47, the Noes are 72. That amendment is lost.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 341 in the name of Marama Fox to clause 38 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for, and I declare the result is Ayes 47, Noes 72, if there is no dissent to that.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 331 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clauses 2, 93, 94, and 96 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): A party vote is called for, and I declare that the result of that is Ayes 47, Noes 72. Therefore the amendments are not agreed.

Amendments not agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley be agreed to:

in clause 2(1), replace “131 to 139” with “138 and 139”.

Amendment agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill and the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 330 as amended.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into two bills, and no progress on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 5 JULY 2017

(continued on Thursday, 6 July 2017)

Karakia

Karakia

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I would ask that we would be able to beginning our proceedings this morning with a karakia.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, that is acceptable.

NUK KORAKO: Kia ora. Ā tēnā rā koutou ngā pūāwaitaka o tō tātau matua tipuna. Ko tēnei karakia tīmataka he huihui takata, kia īnoi tātau. Kei mua Koe i a mātau mahi katoa e Ihowa hei tohutohu i ā mātau mahi katoa. Ko Koe anō hoki hei whakakaha i a mātau mahi katoa. He mea tīmata, he mea mahi, he mea whakaoti i roto i a Koe, kia whiwhi ai hoki mātau i te ora tonu, i te mea e atawhaitia nei e Koe. Ko Ihu Karaiti nei hoki tō tātau Ariki, āmine, kia ora.

[Thank you. Salutations to you, the descendants of our eponymous ancestor. This commencement prayer brings people together; let us pray. You are before us in all our work, oh Jehovah, to guide us in all that we do, and You make us stronger in all our work. It begins within You, it is done within You, and it is completed within You, in order that we receive eternal life because of your benevolence. Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord, amen, thank you.]

Bills

Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. In so doing, can I welcome all our friends from Rangitāne to the gallery this morning.

This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-ā-Rua, and the deed was signed on 6 August 2016—almost a year ago. The deed of settlement settles all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to Rangitāne in the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua regions. The settlement comprises historical redress, which records the breaches and the past injustices caused by failures of the Crown; cultural redress, reconnecting the people of Rangitāne with a number of their most culturally significant sites; and financial and commercial redress, providing Rangitāne with a strong economic base for them to grow.

Can I acknowledge the work of the negotiators, my ministerial colleagues, local government, and other agencies that have contributed to the development of this legislation. I also thank the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has once again done an excellent job of progressing this bill as quickly as possible.

The bill was referred to the committee on 22 September 2016. Twelve written submissions were received from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard six of these at a hearing in Masterton on 14 December 2016. The committee reported the bill back to the House on 20 March this year and recommended that it be passed without amendment. This is a testament to the hard work and the careful consideration that went into the negotiation of the settlement package and the drafting of the bill. Some of the submissions related to longstanding concerns that have been raised many times before, including in the Waitangi Tribunal, and I want to take a moment to address them.

Mandate and representation are recurring issues in Treaty settlements. Committee members, and Crown officials before them, took the submissions of Te Hika o Pāpāuma, the Wai 420 claimants, and the hapū of Ehetere Kawemata Rautahi, the Wai 1950 claimants, very seriously indeed. Both claimant groups asserted a distinct identity from Rangitāne and sought either to be represented as a separate entity or to be excluded altogether from the settlement. Although the Crown’s policy is to negotiate comprehensive settlements covering all the historical claims of a large natural group of tribal interests, this does not mean that the distinct identity of iwi, hapū, and any other groups that form part of the larger groups disappears or is subsumed within the wider group.

All members of Te Hika o Pāpāuma, in so far as their claims relate to Rangitāne, will benefit from the settlement. The settlement of Rangitāne historical Treaty claims will not preclude this group from asserting mana and its identity within its rohe. I think this is a key point that needs to be stressed—the Crown does not, and cannot, involve itself in matters of mana whenua or tribal identity. These matters are for iwi and hapū to decide. What we are trying to achieve here is to address the wrongs of the past and provide the means for members of Rangitāne to move forward. Our approach to settling the claim of Te Hika o Pāpāuma within the large natural groups of Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua has been endorsed by the Tribunal.

As part of the committee’s consideration, it looked at whether Te Hika o Pāpāuma could be specifically referred to in the historical account. A suggestion was to attach an index to the deed of settlement that would refer to instances where they are mentioned in the deed of settlement. The Te Hika o Pāpāuma - mandated iwi authority said that would not satisfy it. Therefore, the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust and the Crown agreed not to have an index to the deed, as it was not requested either by the Crown or by Rangitāne. The committee concluded that it did not think it appropriate to remove the Wai 1950 claimants from the bill, because they are a hapū of Rangitāne and their claim should be contained within Rangitāne’s final settlement.

This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stages of settling the historical claims of Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and what I would like to do is talk in more detail at the third reading, when we will be able to celebrate the settlement fully. Until then, I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e te whānau, kia tuku mihi atu ki a koe Tutehounuku e tuku atu Te Reo Whakamoemiti i te ata nei, nō reira, “mā Te Māngai e tautoko mai, aia nei, āke nei, āe!” E tika ana ki te mihi ki a rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro, nō reira, kei te mi’i atu anō i te ā’uatanga ki ō tātou tini mate, rātou katoa e hinga mai nā puta noa i ngā moutere nei. Nō reira, e ngā mate ma’a o te wā, hoki wairua atu ki a rātou mā, te tini me te mano, hoki wairua atu ki te ringa kaha o Ihowā o ngā mano, tūāuriuri, whaiōiō, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōna korōria, kāti mō tēnā!

Tika hoki kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū kua tae mai ki Te Ana Raiona i tēnei rā. Nō reira, e mihi ana ahau ki a rātou katoa! E kī ana te kōrero, “Tini whetū ki te rangi, Rangitāne ki te whenua”. E mihi ana ahau ki te pae maunga o Ruahine, ki te awa o Manawatū. E mihi hoki ahau ki te maunga Rangitūmau, ki te awa o Ruamahanga, ki Rangitāne o Tamaki nui ā Rua, ki Rangitāne o Wairarapa, ki Kurahaupō waka, ki Rangitāne iwi, nau mai! Haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata nei, tēnā koutou! Tēnā koutou e ngā uri o Whātonga, tēnā koutou ngā uri o Tautoki rāua ko Waipuna me tā rāua tamaiti a Tāne-nui-ā-rangi! Koutou, tātou anei au e tuku mi’i atu ana ki a koutou katoa, koutou e whakamau ana ki te tupuna nei, e whakamau ana ki te whakapapa o te rangatira nei. Me mau tonu ki ngā hononga o ngā karanga maha ō roto rā, nō reira, Rangitāne mā tū mai rā, tū mai rā, tēnā koutou katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time to you the family, bear with me as I express my appreciation to you, Tutehounuku, for the prayer you gave this morning. And so “the Mouthpiece endorses it right now and forever more, yes!” It is apt to pay a tribute to them and the others in the unseen place. Therefore, I pay homage once again in the circumstance of our innumerable deaths, to all of them that have fallen throughout these islands here. So to the deaths of the moment, return spiritually to them and the others, to the countless, the numerous, go back in spirit to the powerful hand of Jehovah of the thousands, of the pitch-black, of the very numerous. Heaven and Earth are filled with the greatness of His glory, enough!

It is right also to extend a tribute to the families and subtribes who have arrived today at the lion’s den. And so I pay homage to all of them. The proverb states: “Like the multitude of the stars in the sky, so is Rangitāne on the Earth”. I acknowledge the Ruahine mountain range, the Manawatū river. I also acknowledge the Rangitūmau mountain, the Ruamahanga river, Rangitāne of Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, Rangitāne of Wairarapa, the Kurahaupō canoe and the Rangitāne tribe, welcome! Welcome to this House here, greetings to you collectively! Salutations to you the descendants of Whātonga, of Tautoki and Waipuna, and their child Tāne-nui-ā-Rangi! To you and us collectively, here I am acknowledging you all; you the ones attaching yourselves to this ancestor and to the genealogy of this chief. Hold fast to the connections of the many callings within it, and so Rangitāne and others, stand and rise up. My appreciation to us all!]

As always, it is a great pleasure to stand to speak on claims settlement bills. Here we are today for the second reading of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill. It has been a long journey and, I suspect, an arduous journey, and I want to acknowledge, first of all, those who are still with us but those who have passed on who had the vision to ensure that the stories and the kōrero of the past are being told in the context of what has happened to Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā.

I always enjoy it when iwi bring their rangatahi for these occasions. So I want to acknowledge those who have the vision from the past and today, and those who will carry on the legacy into the future. It is without a doubt that moving forward with claims settlements is really about the future. I will come to that later on in my speech, but I do want to acknowledge that rangata’i are present, because—if I can speak directly to the rangatahi here—this settlement is for you and all uri of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā in the future.

There are a number of parts to this bill, and I want to touch on the very first part, first of all. It is the part that I think is most important, because in Part 1 there is the historical account, the Crown acknowledgment, and the apology. The historical account is an agreed account between the iwi and the Crown, so it is a negotiated one. As always, I always think “I wonder what’s not in there?”, but we know what is. I want to just acknowledge that—the historical account, or the interaction between the Crown and the iwi since 1840, forms the basis for the acknowledgments that follow. The acknowledgments talk about how the Crown has breached the Treaty, and then there is an apology.

In the acknowledgment you have things like “The Crown acknowledges that the Rangitāne experience of large-scale land loss in the nineteenth century, urbanisation in the twentieth century, and the State education system that discouraged the use of te reo Māori, contributed significantly to Rangitāne struggling to maintain their traditional marae communities and becoming alienated from their own cultural traditions and language.” I wanted to mention that particular one—and there are several acknowledgments—because the actions that have happened to hapū, w’ānau, and iwi since 1840 have created a legacy that, through this process, we are trying to leave behind. The historical and intergenerational trauma that is transferred from one generation to another at some point needs to stop. So I wanted to talk about that particular one because of the clear impact on Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā.

The next part, of course, is the formal apology from the Crown. The apology says things like “The Crown is deeply sorry for its many breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles,” and “The Crown profoundly regrets that it failed to actively protect the tribal structures of Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua …”, which is very good. It is great to have the historical account, the acknowledgment of what went wrong, and then the apology. But that apology needs to be real, and I am not talking about just the current Government but from all Governments, now and in the future. We must always remember that the Crown has breached the Treaty and it apologises and it says it must never do that again—never. So in the instance where legislation comes to this House, it must never ever not consult properly with Rangitāne—ever. That is what the Crown is undertaking to do. That is Part 1.

I agree with Minister Finlayson that, moving forward, there is a lot in this settlement. I want to just briefly touch on the cultural redress, as well. I was interested to see that there are statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition, and that there were five properties that have both. I think having those two layers over those five properties gives a huge opportunity for the reconnection of Rangitāne to the w’enua—back to the land. I remember, when I was a negotiator for Ngāti Apa, that was one of the key things that our people always talked about—the loss of land and reconnecting with the land. So that is one part of it. Another part is, of course, the commercial redress, because reconnecting to the land in a cultural sense is fine, but we also need to have an economic base—the economic base that we lost.

I just want, in the remaining few seconds that I have, to recognise Mavis Mullins, the chair of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, and all of the officers of that trust, and I wish them all the best in going forward into a new direction through this settlement. Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, tēnā tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai tuarua o Te Whare, e mihi atu ana ki a koe, ā, tēnei te mihi ki ngā uri o Kurahaupō waka, ngā uri o Kupe, o Whātonga, nō reira, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa nunui, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you. Acknowledgments to you, relatives of the Kurahaupō canoe, and of Kupe and Whātonga. Therefore, welcome; come hither to Parliament. Bring forth your teachings in regards to the proposal of huge significance. So congratulations and well done to you collectively. My appreciation to all of us.]

I rise in support of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill’s second reading. It is indeed my pleasure to be able to do this also as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā is a significant iwi hailing from the central North Island, but, despite being small in number, the Rangitāne tribal rohe covers a huge area. For too many years, as a result of the Crown’s actions, Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā went without recognition. In an early Crown consensus, their identity was subsumed into other local iwi of the area, despite claimants to the Native Land Court making claims on the basis of their Rangitāne identity. Even today it is believed that many Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā do not realise that they are descendants of the iwi. Despite being small in number, Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā has the second-largest land area covered in a settlement, behind only the vast areas covered by Kai Tahu. It is good to hear that there has been a recent resurgence, actually, in Rangitāne identity, which I am sure can only be boosted by the passing of this bill.

I want to turn to some of the things that we discussed in the select committee process of this particular bill, particularly during the submission stages and the hīkoi, or the journey, to this second reading here today. One issue that was raised was the place of Te Hika o Pāpāuma, which is recognised in the settlement as a hapū of Rangitāne. Te Hika o Pāpāuma submitted that they should be recognised separately as a large natural grouping for the purposes of settlement regulations. When looking at this situation, though, we saw there was actually a distinct identity separate from both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu. The Crown prefers not to negotiate at individual hapū or whānau level, preferring the large natural groupings, but believed that to do so in this case would have actually been appropriate. This is something that the committee considered very, very seriously. We have no desire to undermine the basis on which the Crown negotiates with large natural groupings. However, we recognise that Te Hika o Pāpāuma does have a distinct identity within Rāngitane. Our conclusion was that the most appropriate way to recognise this distinct identity would be to attach an index to the deed of settlement that refers to instances where Te Hika o Pāpāuma is mentioned in the deed.

We also had similar issues raised by the Wai 1950 claimants, the hapū of Ehetere Kawemata Rautahi. This hapū affiliates to Rangiwhaka-ewa and is therefore included in the claimant definition of this settlement. Again, we considered this issue very, very seriously. We considered this issue very seriously. However, in the end we had to conclude that because of the Wai 195 claimants, which were recognised there as a hapū of Rangitāne, it was appropriate that they be included in this final settlement.

Moving on to the redress included in the deed of settlement, we had submitters suggest that the redress including the Ngaumu Crown forest land and the former Lansdowne School should be reclassified from cultural redress to commercial redress. These submitters have a point, which was made very, very well. However, I do not think it is the role of the Māori Affairs Committee to change the specifics of redress that have already been negotiated, agreed, and, ultimately, approved by the claimant community.

We were also asked to give Rangitāne one further seat on the Pūkaha board, where they currently hold one. This would ensure that Rangitāne’s cultural footprint in Pūkaha / Mt Bruce would never be lost. This issue was not raised in the negotiations with the Crown prior to the bill’s introduction, and it is not something that would be appropriate for us to now insert at this stage. We did encourage Rangitāne to take this up with the Pūkaha board.

I want to thank everyone here from Rangitāne who submitted to the select committee, and also for the manaaki that was shown to our committee when we went for the kanohi ki te kanohi submissions hearings. I want to acknowledge that there was indeed a very, very—we believe, compared with a number of other Treaty settlements, the manaaki that was shown reflected in some ways the kotahitaka that has taken place with Rangitāne in regard to this bill.

It was an honour to be involved in the process, and I look forward to speaking again on the remaining stages of this particular bill. I wish Rangitāne well, and I assure you that we do have a very, very succinct and direct process and that every settlement bill that comes before us has, in some ways, a lot of commonality with others but in some ways is quite different. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, otirā, e Te Iwi mai i Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua tae atu ki Te Wairarapa, e tū ana ki te mihi ki a koutou katoa, ōku rau rangatira mā, kui mā, koro mā, mokopuna, tamariki hoki, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, and at the same to you the people from Dannevirke, and across to the Wairarapa, I rise to acknowledge you, all my esteemed ones and others, elderly women and menfolk, grandchildren and children also, salutations and accolades to you collectively, welcome, come hither, my appreciation to us all.]

It is indeed an honour to support the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill at the second reading. Can I acknowledge the iwi who have turned up here in the gallery today. Like my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, I acknowledge that it is always exciting and promising for the future when we have our rangatahi in the gallery. So, again, I offer my warm, warm greetings to you all here today.

There are a couple of people I want to also acknowledge who have been previously acknowledged by other speakers, and they are the original claimants—the individuals, the whānau, and the hapū—who have really set the Rangitāne settlement in chain. For those who are here and those who are not here, I mihi to them. I mihi to our negotiators, who have brought this to the House today, and also to the current chair, Mavis Mullins—it is lovely to see you out at the front there, Mavis—and, of course, to the other trustees of the Tū Mai Rā post-settlement entity group: Warwick Gernhoefer, the deputy chair; Jason Kerehi; Yvette Grace; and Edward Pearse. For your stewardship in terms of where we are at this second reading, kei te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

Particularly for the rangatahi who are in the House today, by way of explanation of what we are actually doing here, this is the second reading. Every piece of legislation that becomes law in this House has three readings: the first reading, when we all come into the House and explain what we are trying to pass; the second reading, which we are doing right now; and then the third reading, which is the third and final reading before the bill becomes law. Like many in this House, we want to do this in the most timely and quick manner so that we can acknowledge Rangitāne’s full and final Treaty settlement, and then the iwi is left to continue on its way. I just wanted to take the time to explain that for our rangatahi in the House.

I too want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to acknowledge the submitters who came before the select committee to raise the issues. I do not want to traverse what Minister Finlayson and committee chairman, Nuk Korako, have, particularly on Te Hika o Pāpāuma or any other claimant groups—I think you have acknowledged that—but there are some issues unique to this particular settlement that I do want to talk about.

When I read both the report from the select committee and, of course, the submission from Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, there are a couple of unique characteristics that I just want to comment on. One is to acknowledge the vast, overlapping interests of Rangitāne’s settlement. Normally when you are settling Treaty claims, you have got an iwi north of you and you have got an iwi south of you, or you might have an iwi west of you, or you might have an iwi east of you, and these are really important because you are obviously going to have what are called shared interest areas. When I look at Rangitāne’s, I have got to acknowledge the vast number of cross-claims and iwi that you have had to navigate yourself through to get to where we are today. I just want to acknowledge that, because not everyone is going to be happy. Rangitāne is not going to be happy, and nor are those surrounding iwi going to be happy.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Treaty settlements, that is one of the fallouts that happen when you are surrounded with so many iwi—they will say that they have shared interests in the areas that Rangitāne have. That we are here today indicates the work and the negotiation that has gone on to bring us here. So I just want to acknowledge the overlapping interests of the vast number of iwi that surround Rangitāne.

The other characteristic that I want to raise—and it was not addressed in the Māori Affairs Committee—is the shared redress bill that was identified in the Tū Mai Rā submission to the Māori Affairs Committee. Specifically, in its submission where it talks about—in paragraph 17, it says: “In that regard, the Bill does not give effect to redress relating to the following: (a) Joint vesting of the Mataikona property; (b) Joint vesting of the Mākirikiri Gravel Reserve; (c) Joint vesting of the bed of Lake Wairarapa; (d) the Statutory Board for the management of Wairarapa Moana; (e) The vesting of the Mākirikiri Recreation Reserve and Mākirikiri Scenic reserve in the tupuna, Te Rangiwhaka-ewa.” In the next paragraph in the Tū Mai Rā submission to the select committee, it goes on to talk about how: “The Shared Redress Bill is to be introduced to the House of Representatives following the introduction of the Bill and before the introduction of the Ngāti Kahungunu Settlement Bill. There are currently negotiations and further discussions needed to finalise the redress to be included in the Shared Redress Bill.”

I guess, to the Minister who is here and, obviously, the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee—just to give, I guess, some clarity to Rangitāne, given that we are debating and supporting their settlement bill at second reading, it is really, as I read it, premised on these outstanding areas in terms of the shared redress bill. I think the House, or this side particularly—OK. I would be really interested to know what time lines we can expect around this shared redress bill, and I am pretty sure Rangitāne would want some clarity of when that is actually going to happen, given we are passing their Treaty bill, which is very much dependent on these outstanding issues, as I read it. Perhaps somebody from the committee, or the Minister, may take that up and give some assurances to the House and Rangitāne, particularly, as to when we are going to get to the shared redress bill. Are we going to do it before the House lifts, or is that something for when Labour takes the Government benches in September, later this year? You will miss that one. [Interruption] It is OK, we will take care of it. We will take care of it.

Hopefully, by the third reading we will have some clarity around that particular issue. But I think it is important that it is raised in this House, particularly as we are doing the Rangitāne settlement bill.

Can I just say, in closing, that the Minister did acknowledge the mandate and representation challenges of Treaty settlements. I absolutely agree. I absolutely agree that we are always going to have mandate and representation challenges through Treaty settlements, and I absolutely believe that it is not the role of the Crown to determine who is mana whenua or who has tribal identity.

One of the issues—in response to the Minister’s statements—is the fact that when we do set up these entities and we do acknowledge the role of the Crown and try to make up for what has been taken off our people, there are always going to be issues around those who feel left out. When I look at this particular settlement—and I just note, for the House, that we have 3,000 members of Rangitāne. In terms of the ratification of the deed of settlement in the report, 23.1 percent of eligible voting members actually participated in the deed of settlement, and 23.1 percent of 3,000 eligible voting members is actually 690 people. But I do note that we got a 10 percent gain when it came to the post-settlement governance entity, where 33 percent of eligible Rangitāne members voted, which is 990 out of 3,000.

Absolutely, Minister, there are some mandating issues, but it is also a valid question to remind our iwi authorities that we need to lift participation for those who are eligible and feel that they have some skin in this game, because that is what we are trying to do in terms of passing legislation for all descendants of Rangitāne. I know, with Mavis, who is the Māori woman who is winner of Business Woman of the Year—ngā mihi to you, Mavis—that, well, it is in good stead and that Rangitāne will be able to take this forth once we get to the third reading. But it is just an issue that I want to leave on the table for Rangitāne, to ensure we get wider participation for the people in the uri of Rangitāne. That is where we are starting to get real. I think, particularly when I look at those mokopuna, that the benefits will be realised. I commend this bill to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It is with great pleasure that I am here today to speak in support of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill in its second reading. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge all those in the gallery, and also those who are not in the gallery—those who have passed before us. It is really nice to see you here. I always have a very positive experience when I am with the people of Rangitāne. I will come back to the rangatahi who are sitting on my left-hand side—a very important group of people. But I will come back to them in a moment.

The detail of how far we have come has been traversed very well across the House. I am not going to go into detail on that, but only to say that I have a huge amount of empathy for the struggle that has occurred over generations in respect of all the settlements that come into this House. These people were, essentially, ripped off. They were ripped off for over 100-plus years, and this is only a small, in some ways, settlement or recompense for the crimes, the deeds, that were done in the past.

But it takes a big man—to use the term—or a big person, to accept the apology. That is my point here today. It takes a big person to say: “I accept the apology that you are offering.” Without that acceptance, there is no point in us being here. There is no point in saying there is a settlement when, in fact, an aggrieved person continues to be angry, continues to be aggrieved, and continues to be dissociated from the community because of that anger.

I commend the Rangitāne people for doing exactly that—for burying the hatchet—because it is important that it is buried. The people, the rangatahi on the left of my view, and the people in the middle—the people who are more my age—have the attitude that things will get better, not because of the settlement per se, but because they have the attitude that they can bury the hatchet and get on with things.

This is very symbolic, but it is not going to solve the issues that we all face when we get out of bed every morning at 6.30 or 7, or even 9 o’clock in the morning, for some people—I will not name any names. It is important for those rangatahi here, who are taking up the mantle, and taking on the task of telling the story. Part of the issue that I have with the whole process is that the stories are not told. We, out there in the real world, do not get to hear about some of the issues that have faced iwi. There are some who just do not accept these settlements should be taking place. They do not accept that there are—well, they just choose to ignore it, actually—aggrieved parties.

I say that we, on both sides of the House, need to continue to tell the story, and that is part of the reason we are here today. Also, it is the responsibility of iwi to tell their own stories to the general public, not just to the young folk in the iwi.

So I commend the people, the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā, to take this forward and to move forward, and I particularly want to note the gifting back of the Pūkaha / Mount Bruce conservation area—a fantastic gift. I go there regularly, and I am always very pleased to see someone there from Rangitāne. I look forward to the third reading of this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the people who are here today in the gallery and the people who are watching at home: the people of Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and the people of Rangitāne o Wairarapa.

It is a privilege to speak on a Treaty settlement bill, and so it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill. I was not part of the select committee hearings process that resulted after the first reading, so I did not get to listen to the submissions that were conducted in the Hawke’s Bay. However, I have read through the submissions as they appear on the website and as they were sent in. There were 12 submissions in all, and there were six that were heard.

The submissions themselves are really interesting and, having read the settlement deed and having read the legislation as well, I am left with some sympathy and concern for some of those submitters. Other people, including Minister Finlayson, have said that it is not the role of the Crown to determine who makes up the iwi in terms of dealing with the settlements. However, we do have some concern about the fact that hapū are left in or out of settlement deeds. The role of the select committee is not to determine that at all, and we acknowledge that.

The role of the select committee is fairly limited in some ways. We cannot go back and negotiate the settlement because it has already been done. However, for the record, I need to state that the Greens do have a concern about Treaty settlements in that they may, in fact, continue to breach the Treaty of Waitangi because the Crown determines the large natural groupings to some extent. It decides whom it will negotiate with and when it will negotiate, and so there is no balance of power there. So we definitely do have some sympathy for Te Hika o Pāpāuma and also for the hapū of Ehetere Kawemata Rautahi, who are the Wai 1950 claimants.

In every Treaty settlement bill, the Greens always want to state and to get it on the record that we do not actually believe that these settlements are full and final. The reason we do not think that they are full and final is that even though these claims deal with grievances before 1992, we do not know the impact that the historical grievances will have on future generations. That is why we do not think it is final. In no way is this settlement full either, when you consider the losses that are outlined in the settlement deed and also in the bill itself. When you look at the losses, it is not a full settlement at all, and in order for us to move forward with this bill, I think we need to acknowledge that. That is why it is actually outlined in detail in the agreed historical record in the legislation itself.

We have to acknowledge that even though it is not a full settlement—and in no way is it—it is actually the best negotiation that could happen up to this point, because it is not to undermine the negotiations that have already occurred and the generations who have actually participated in trying to get these grievances recognised, either on the side of Rangitāne or on the Crown’s side. So I just want to assure the House that, actually, that is not our intention to undermine the negotiations that have happened, because this settlement is very hard-won.

We also state that it is not full and final, basically, because we need to recognise the generosity of the people in accepting this settlement, and we are concerned that the generosity that these people are showing will lead to further claims. One of my colleagues on this side of the House has already talked about the issue of cross-claimants, and so I also just want to acknowledge the work that has gone on, particularly with the iwi, to determine the way forward and the pathway forward for this. I also want to recognise that the cultural redress and the relationships that this iwi will be having, particularly with councils, are relationships for the future that are not always easy, so I want to wish them well in how that unfolds as well.

The financial redress is $32.5 million plus interest. Like Alastair Scott, the previous speaker, we acknowledge that there will be people out there who do not know the history of this settlement and who have not read the settlement deed or the legislation, and they will be saying the things that they always say, which are pretty racist, really—you know, they will be saying that this is the Treaty gravy train. That offends me to my soul because it is not, and anybody who has had a passing look at this legislation would understand that. Yes, I believe that there is a requirement for us to teach the history of the people of this land to a much wider audience so that we can combat that.

The $32.5 million is a drop in a hat when we compare it with some of the other payments that this Government has made, like the bailout of South Canterbury Finance, which was $1.2 billion. This is a very small amount. It did not even lose its land.

But, anyway, this bill is about the future. In the third reading we will talk more about the future, but for today’s reading—the second reading—we just need to acknowledge all that has happened during the select committee process. We also want to restate that we should be congratulating the iwi on accepting this deal as well, because it is the best they can get. It does put Rangitāne on a more secure economic footing. We acknowledge that. We acknowledge that it is time to celebrate that, and so we will be supporting this to the final reading, which will be the next one.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ēngari, i mua o te haere tonu ō ōku kōrero, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e Nuk, nāu i whakarite i ā tātou ki Te Runga Rawa, kia īnoi atu ki a ia kia hōmai wana korowai aroha ki runga i a mātou i roto i Te Whare nei, i ēnei o ngā manuhiri kua tae mai nei i waenganui i ā tātou i te rā nei nā reira, tēnā koe! Ā, tēnā hoki koutou ngā whānau i haramai ki konei ki te tautoko i te pire nei. Ka nui ngā mihi ki a rātou i ngāro atu i te tirohanga kanohi! Ētahi atu o rātou i tū kaha nei ki te hāpai i tēnei kaupapa. Nā koutou te hunga ora, nā tātou hoki, ka kite ai i te taenga mai o tēnei pire ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare Pāremata, nā reira, nau mai, haere mai!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Before I continue with my comments, I truly acknowledge you, Nuk. You are the one who led the prayer for us to the Almighty Above and asked Him to place His loving cloak over us in this House and upon these of the visitors who have arrived here amongst us today, and so thank you. So salutations to you the families as well, who came here in support of this bill. The tributes to them who are lost from view are enormous. Some of them stood resolute in support of this matter, and consequently you collectively, the living, and we as well witnessed the arrival of this bill before the House. Therefore, welcome; come hither!]

I just want to acknowledge Nuk Korako, our minister, our priest, for today’s session, and to acknowledge those of our visitors who have come to witness this second reading of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill.

I want to acknowledge particularly those who have been to the forefront of this claim and who are with us today. I understand that Mavis Mullins, Ron Karaitiana, and Jason Kerehi are present in the House. I just want to acknowledge them, because I know that it has not been an easy task for them or for anyone who has chosen to carry this kaupapa for their iwi, for their hapū, and for their whānau, because invariably there will be members of their iwi, of their whānau, and of their hapū who are not happy with the final settlement. But be that as it may, in the face of all that adversity, they have been responsible for bringing this bill to this House for its second reading.

While I am acknowledging people I also want to acknowledge my colleague Ron Mark. Reference was made to a number of cross-claims. Ron was a negotiator for one of those cross-claimants, but he also acknowledges his Rangitāne side and his connection with Hurunui o Rangi Marae. He is in the House to make sure that I support this bill. I say it with some jest, in that being cross-claimants you are actually trying to get more than the other claimant, yet when one group is ready to settle, all of a sudden we are part of that whānau, and so we see that with Ron today.

But I just want to say that this bill is seen to be a full and final settlement of this claim, and I can recall when we heard submissions that one claimant said that “While we are not happy, we must move on.” What we see today is an example of an iwi group knowing that they will not be fully compensated for the loss that they have experienced, but wanting to move on and to look to the future.

One of those things when we talk about loss and the breaches by the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi is that invariably it is about land and resources, but included in this claim are culture and the loss of language, and is it not ironic that in this day and age this very House has been passing legislation to ensure the survival of Te Reo Māori? I think that this claim, this bill, gives an example as to why we should be doing that.

So I want to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee—even though I was one—in that we accepted the submissions that were made, to the extent that we could and were permitted to do so, and so we reported back to the House that the bill should proceed without amendment.

One speaker talked about the need to tell stories. I agree with that because, unfortunately, there seems to be a growing level of discontent by those who are not aware of the actual history surrounding these claims, and so that is leading to discontent amongst the wider community. I want to say also that while we have that opportunity to tell this history, there is also the option for claimants to go into direct negotiations. While that might be encouraged by the Crown, I want to say that for those who are contemplating settlement or have yet to settle, they should go through the process of telling their history so that it is recorded, and so that it is not left to certain people alone within the iwi to be responsible for ensuring that those stories are told.

Further, this particular claim is an example of the multiple cross-claimants who pervade in this area. I think it is important that we acknowledge the tenacity of those negotiators on behalf of this iwi to make its way through that minefield of cross-claims and to reach this stage.

I want to conclude by saying that while—as has already been stated—this is not full compensation, it does give rise to the need for our country to recognise the contribution and the sacrifice that such claimants make and give in order, first of all, to complete their claims but also to recognise the contribution that they make for the wider good. I commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Otirā, koutou e hui nei i tēnei rangi ātaahua. Rawe te kite atu i a koutou me te hunga rangatahi kei ō koutou taha, ōku kui, ōku pou, ōku rahi, koutou katoa ngā kuia mōrehu kei waenganui i a koutou, koutou i whakamana nei i tēnei hui, tēnei Whare, ēhara nā tēnei taha, nā koutou! Nā reira, kai te pīrangi au te mihi atu ki a koutou, i whakapau werawera, i whakapau kaha i ngā tau kua hipa atu kia tae mai ki tēnei rangi, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou! Kai te mōhio koutou ko wai ō koutou e mahi kaha nei, e hāpai kaha nei, i tēnei o ngā whakatau. Kua rangona koutou ki te kōrero o ōku hoa, ōku hoamahi. He koha nui tēnei ki a Aotearoa! Me whakanuia tēnei whenua i a koutou mō ō koutou kaha ki te koha atu i ngā hara i waiho ki te taha, ngā mamae ka waiho ki te taha. Ko koutou tēnei e hāpai ana i ngā tikanga o ō tātau tūpuna o Rangitāne, o Kurahaupō, o Whātonga. Ko koutou tēnā, ahakoa te mamae, ahakoa te taumaha, kua tau tēnei pire, kua tau te raru nui kai waenganui i Te Karauna me te tangata whenua. Ka haere tonu ngā mamae me ngā nawe, hoi anō kua tae ki tēnei rangi kai te mihi atu ki a koutou!

Ā tēnei me Te Reo Māori, mōhio pai tātau o Te Wairarapa kua ngaro atu tō tātau Reo ēngari anō kai roto i ō tātau tamariki, mokopuna, ka whai oranga anō! Koirā te kōrero o tērā o ngā poropiti, a Paora Pōtangaroa! Nāna te kī mai, ka ngaro tō tāua Reo ēngari, kai te pai mā ngā tamariki Te Reo e whakahokia mai. Ēngari, kai runga i te pokohiwi ō koutou ngā kaiako o tēnei o ngā kura, Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, tēnā koutou, me ngā taura here i ngā tau kua hipa atu, ko rātau ngā mea hāpai i tō tāua Reo tae noa ki tēnei wā. Mōhio pai tātau i nāianei ki te pānui i tēnei, me Te Reo Māori, ka whai rongoā ko ngā kōrero o ō tātau tūpuna kua kitea i roto i ō rātau tuhinga. I nāianei kei a tātau Te Reo Māori hei pānui kia mōhio pai nō hea tātau, ā, taua hononga o Ngāti Hāmua ki a wai? Ki Ngāti Kahungunu, karekau, ki Rangitāne! Mōhio pai ana tātau i nāianei, kei runga i ō koutou pokohiwi tēnei kaupapa e hāpai nui nei, nā reira tēnā koutou! I tuku whakaaro au ki tērā o tātau whanaunga a Uncle Jim i tēnei wā, me tana hoa rangatira a Auntie Marg, Uncle Cookie, and Auntie Helen, mō Te Reo te take, mō Te Reo te take! I roto i Te Wairarapa kia mōhio pai tātau, ko Uncle Jim noa iho te koroua e mau nei i tō tāua Reo, mai i te wā he tamaiti a ia. Ko ia anake kai roto i Te Wairarapa!

Whai muri i a ia, ko tō tāua parata a Mike, kai te hāpai i te paepae o Te Oreore. Mean, you know! Ēngari i ako hoki ia i Te Reo i roto i Te Kuratini. Maumahara au ki taua wā, kāre i paku mōhio tātau ki Te Reo Māori! Hika! Kāre i taea te tautoko i te paepae me ngā waiata cos, kāre mātau i te mōhio i ngā waiata nā te ngarohanga o Te Reo, me ngā kōrero hōhonu o ō tātau tūpuna kai roto i aua waiata. I nāianei, ko koutou ēnā e hāpai kaha nei i te paepae me ō koutou waiata! I runga i tēnei, e whakaaro ana au ki tēnei o ngā waiata, mēnā kai te haramai koutou, tēhea atu? Mōhio au kai a koutou ā koutou rakuraku ēngari, kai te pīrangi au ki te waiata i tēnei o ngā waiata ki tō koutou taha! Āwhina mai, mōhio pai koutou ki tēnei o ngā waiata rongonui a Rangitāne.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time, all of you gathered here on this beautiful day. It is wonderful to see you with the young ones at your side, my elderly women and menfolk, my numerous, and all of you surviving elderly matriarchs amongst you. Your presence legitimises this gathering, this House which does not belong to this side. It is yours. Therefore I want to acknowledge you collectively for the sweat and energy expended by you in the years gone by right up to this day. Salutations to you. You know who among you worked hard and supported this one of the settlements. You have heard what my fellow members and colleagues said. This indeed is a significant offering to New Zealand! This country must celebrate you on your efforts to gift the transgressions and hurts that were left to one side. You are indeed this lot that are supporting the customs of our ancestors of Rangitāne, Kurahaupō, and Whātonga. That is you then; despite the hurt and seriousness, this bill and the big problem between the Crown and the indigenous people has been settled. The hurts and imperfections continue, and as a result this day has been reached and so I congratulate you collectively!

Now, in regards to this and the Māori language, we of the Wairarapa know all too well that our language is lost but it lives on in our children and grandchildren. That is what one of the prophets, Paora Pōtangaroa alluded to. He said that our language will be lost but that is fine, the children will bring it back. But the responsibility will be on your shoulders. Teachers of this one of the schools in Dannevirke, I commend you collectively, and the kinship links in the years past. They were the ones who supported our language right this moment. We know now how to read this and the Māori language, the stories of our ancestors, as seen in their writings receives a tonic. Right now we have the Māori language to read so that we really know where we are from and that connection of Ngāti Hāmua to whom? To Ngāti Kahungunu, no, to Rangitāne! We know that this matter, which is supported greatly now, is on your shoulders. So congratulations to you collectively!

At this moment, I give a thought to that one of our relations, Uncle Jim and his wife Auntie Marg, Uncle Cookie and Auntie Helen, the reason being for the language, for the language! In the Wairarapa we need to understand well that Uncle Jim is the only elderly man that has our language from the time he was a child. He is the only one in the Wairarapa. After him it is that brother of yours and mine, Mike, he supports the speechmakers’ bench at Te Oreore. Mean, you know! But he learnt the language at polytech. I recall that time we did not know a thing about the Māori language! Heck! We weren’t able to support the speechmakers’ bench with the songs cos we did not know the songs due to the language loss, and we did not know the esoteric stories of our ancestors that were in those songs. Right now, there you are supporting the speechmakers’ bench strongly with your songs! As a consequence of this I am thinking about this one of the songs and whether you or someone else will come forward. I know you have your guitars with you but I want to sing this one of the songs with you! Come and help, you know this one of the famous Rangitāne songs really well!]

Tini whetū ki te rangi, Rangitāne ki te whenua.

I kī ai he iwi hūmārie, maranga, tū mai rā.

Tū mai rā, tū mai rā, ngā uri o Rangitāne.

Whakamau i ō tūpuna, tō whakapapa rangatira.

Me mau tonu ki ngā hononga o ngā karanga maha ō roto rā.

Nā reira, Rangitāne mā, tū mai rā, tū mai rā e.

Oh beautiful! Nā, rangatahi mā, mokopuna mā kua whānau mai koutou i roto i Te Reo, kua tupu mai koutou i roto i Te Reo, me mau kaha koutou ki tō koutou Reo Māori. Ēhara tēnā i te kōrero mō ō koutou mātua, ō koutou koroua, kuia. Karekau tō tāua Reo i ahau e tipu ake, karekau he kura pēnā i a koutou te whakaako ki a au i ngā kōrero me ngā hītori o ō tātau tūpuna, Mīriaha, Mīriaha Vern! Kei tērā paku wāhi i nāianei tata ki Eketāhuna, ki Pūkaha, Mīriaha, tēnā tangata rongonui i haere atu ki Te Privy Council, ki tāwāhi ki te whawhai kaha nei mō te whenua, Mīriaha, mea mai ia.

[Now, you young ones, grandchildren, and others, you have been born within the language. You grew up in it. You must hold on to your Māori language strongly. That instruction is not for your elderly parents, elderly men, and womenfolk. I did not have your Māori language as I grew up. I did not have a school like yours to teach me the stories and histories of our ancestors; Mīriaha, Mīriaha Vern, that small place now close to Eketāhuna and Pūkaha. Mīriaha, that famous person who went to the Privy Council, who went overseas, who fought hard for the land; Mīriaha he said to me: “Hey mate, I don’t need you to come and survey my land. I’ll tell you where my land is.”]

It cost him only a pound. They wanted to charge him £1 to survey his own land. He said: “Excuse you, it’s not about the money.” He had money coming out of his ears, Nireaha. He owned a hotel. Everybody stopped there, right in the old tai-ā-pure nui a Whātonga. They had chopped those forests down, and now they had to come down on a coach, so he built a hotel—of course he did.

He took his case to the Privy Council and taught himself Latin. Nireaha taught himself Latin. English—that was easy. Māori he got in a heartbeat. He taught himself Latin so that he could take his case to the Privy Council, and he won. Excuse you, everybody else—excuse them, excuse us.

Tino harikoa au mō tēnei rangi. I roto i tēnei tō koutou pire tētahi paku wāhanga e whakatikahia ngā ingoa Māori o ngā wāhi, Remutaka tēnā koutou! Kai roto i tō koutou pire, kua whakatikahia ngā ingoa o te kāinga, Remutaka, Haukōpuapua, Pūkaha. He mea nui tēnā ki a tātau aua ingoa! I nāianei kai te mōhio tātau ki Te Reo Māori me hāpai i ngā ingoa tika o te takiwā. Nā reira, kai te tuku mihi ki a koutou anō rā! Whakatikatika i ngā raru me ngā mahi hē o ngā tau kua hipa atu! Hoi anō, kai roto i te tekau hēkona, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi ki a koutou, haere tonu rā! Tū mai, maranga mai, Rangitāne mā! “Tini whetū ki te rangi, Rangitāne ki te whenua”, tēnā tātau katoa!

[I am very delighted about this day. Within this bill of yours is a small part that amends Māori place names, Remutaka. Well done! The place names Remutaka, Haukōpuapua, and Pūkaha have been corrected in your bill. Those names are important to us. We know the Māori language now must support the correct names of the region. And so I extend an appreciation to you collectively once again. Amend the problems and faulty tasks of years gone by. And so within the 10 seconds I have left, I want to congratulate you collectively. Continue to go forward. Arise, stand up Rangitāne and others! “Like the many stars in the sky, so too is Rangitāne upon Earth.” My appreciation to us all!]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe, aku whānau whānui o Rangitāne rāua ko Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, ā, nau mai, haere mai! Nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā, i te rā whakahirahira, nau mai, haere mai! Ngā mokopuna, nau mai, haere mai!

[Thank you, and to you my extended family of Rangitāne and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, welcome, come hither! Welcome, come hither to Parliament on this day of significance; welcome, come hither! Welcome grandchildren, come hither!]

I want to say welcome to you, mokopuna. I heard what Meka said about this being a historic day, and, as I look up into the gallery, I see some of you are a little bit asleep. You have had to wake up early because your kuia and koroua got you up early, but kei te pai, kei te pai. I understand that. When I was a little girl, my Uncle Kuki said to me that it does not matter if you go to sleep when they are reciting whakapapa on the marae, because you are hearing and you are absorbing. You are absorbing, so kei te pai. Kei te pai.

I want to acknowledge my Mum, who is sitting up in the gallery today—she is 85 years old; she is in her 86th year—and I want to acknowledge Mum’s sister, Auntie Hoagy, who was married to Uncle Kuki. They worked really hard to get to this place today. While Mum has spent most of her adult years out of Masterton, Mum always kept connected, and Uncle Kuki always made sure that Mum was connected, to the goings on of the whānau in the Wairarapa. So that is why I stand and I acknowledge Mum.

When Mum came here last year to first put a signature on the deed, I said to her: “Come on up and sign—put your signature against this deed.”, and my Mum said: “Oh no, no, no, no, no.” I say to you now, Mum, that I told you a little bit of a tiko that day, because I said to you: “Come on, Mum. The Minister said he wants to see you up here.” So Mum turned around and said to our whānau sitting there: “The Minister wants me to sign it.” So, Mum, it was a little bit of a tiko, but I got you up there. I am so pleased that I did get you up there, because we have photos and your daughter and your son, who are overseas, saw it, and we are very proud of you, Mum. So I just want to acknowledge you, Mum.

I want to acknowledge our lead negotiators for our iwi. Jason Kerehi, you did a great job in getting the bill to where it is now, in its second reading. You have worked hard. I know that you will have had a lot of people in your ear, going “Rrr, rrr, rrr.”, but you held your ground, and that is why we are here today. I want to acknowledge my cousin Ronald, who is sitting up in the gallery as well, for some of his advice—I am sure that he was one of the many voices in your ear, as well—and Tīpene Crisp, who is sitting up in the gallery also.

I want to acknowledge Mavis Mullins, the chair of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā. Mavis, you have done some wonderful things in your life. I want to acknowledge the fact that you are one of our wāhine toa for Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and you continue to do that and lead the light for wāhine in our area. So I just want to acknowledge and thank you, Mavis, for all the great work that you do in shining a light on our whānau of Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

Most of my colleagues will have spoken about what is in the bill for you today. It is our second reading. There are only a couple more things to go and we can watch this bill reach Royal assent, and you can start moving on in your economic development, which is something that I have been waiting to see for many years for Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

I am really proud to be part of an iwi that gives back a reserve, Pūkaha. I noted in a comment that you made, Mavis, that the gifting back of Pūkaha from the iwi is a very great thing, but also that some of the iwi may wish to go and roll around down there when they want to. I hope to see our people down there as well.

My kōrero is not going to be long because it is only just the second reading, but in closing I want to say that it is good to see everybody here. I want to also mention that in the House today we heard a member talk about the completion of Māori bills. I can positively say that on the side of the House we do not talk, talk, talk, but we deliver, and that is our mantra. Leading into this—and I did not want to do this—next election, this side will be delivering for all New Zealanders. With that I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori mō te roanga o taku kōrero, hei. Hei tīmatanga kōrero māku “Ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri”, tāku e mihi atu nei ki a koe e Tutehounuku. Kua whai wāhi te whakaaro o tēnā, o tēnā o tātau ki Te Kaihanga, hei whakarite i tō tātau nohoanga i te rā nei me te haumaru i ngā manuhiri kua tae mai ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei. Tēnei ka mihi atu ki a koe me te wehi tonu ki tō tātau Kaihanga kia toro mai tana ringa manaaki, tana ringa atawhai ki runga i a tātau e koropiko atu nei. “He tātai whetū ki te rangi mau tonu, mau tonu, mau tonu, he tātai tangata ki te whenua ka ngaro noa, ngaro noa, ngaro noa.”

Ka kohikohi haere ahau i ngā aituā maha kua wahaina e Te Whare i te rā nei, ka tāpae atu ki te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare. Ka tangi atu, ka mihi atu ki ngā mate, haere, haere, haere!

Ka whakanuia e tātau Te Iwi Māori i te wahanga o te tau e kīia nei ko Matariki. Ko te whetū, ko Puanga ka whakairihia ake rā ki runga i a Ranginui e tū nei ahakoa ka pānui ahau i ngā pukapuka o te nāianei me te kī atu, e hia nei ngā whetū o Matariki. Ka whakaaro ake, he wā mō te pai, he wā anō mō te pōuri, nō reira, rātau ki a rātau, ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe, kāti rā tēnā tātau katoa.

Ka tautoko atu ahau i ngā kōrero a Te Minita i te tīmatanga o tēnei wahanga i te ata nei. Kua kōrero mai a ia mō ētahi o ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tēnei pire, e pā ana ki ngā nekehanga katoa o ngā pire pēnei nā e tatū ana i ngā take Tiriti o te wā, e tatū ana i ngā nawe o Te Iwi Māori mai i te taenga o Te Pākehā tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō ētahi o aua āhuatanga, hei tīmatanga ake, ka whakakao ake i ētahi o ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia mai e Te Minita e pā ana ki ngā mea nei te kōrero, ki ngā whakapapa o tātau Te Māori.

Kua roa rawa atu ahau e mea atu ana, ē, ko te mate o te ture ka whakataiapangia Te Māori. Koinā te mate o te ture. Ka kī atu anei ko tetahi Māori me tana taiapa, anei ko tetahi Māori me tana taiapa, me kaua koe, koutou e harirū, e whakawhanaunga ana i a kōrua, nē? Otirā, ki roto i Te Reo Pākehā “overlapping interests”. E hoa, ko te āhuatanga tērā o Te Māori, me kaua koe e kī mai “Aww, nō tēnei iwi anahe koe, me karo atu koe i te mana me te whakapapa o tō māmā, o tō whāea hoki.” nē? He raruraru tēnā.

Nō reira, hāunga rā ko ngā raruraru e pā ana ki te whakapapa o Te Māori, me kaua tātau e whakaaro ko te whakapapa o te Māori, ko te toto anake, kāhore; ko te whakapapa ki te whenua, ko te whakapapa ki te moana, ko te whakapapa ki ngā wai, ki ngā maunga. Me kaua te tangata e pōhēhē, ko te whakapapa e pā kau atu ana ki te tangata anake, kāhore! Koinā te āhuatanga o Te Māori. Ka kite atu ahau ki roto i te tini o ngā pire pēnei nā, ki roto i Te Whare nei, tērā raruraru ka piua tonu mai, ka piua tonu mai, ka piua tonu mai.

Nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki Te Minita me Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, tā te mea, ka riro ki Te Minita me taua Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori te mahi nunui ki te āta wetewete i ngā kōrero, ki te whiriwhiri ko wai mā ka whai pānga ki tēnei pire, ko wai mā ka whai hua ki roto i tēnei pire. Nā, he mahi uaua tēnā, he mahi uaua tēnā. Ēngari ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero i wahaina mai e Rangitāne ki roto i ngā wā i tū koutou ki mua i te aroaro o Te Taraipiunara. Ko reira tātau kite atu ai i te mana o te whakapapa me te rongoā mō te take e kōrerotia ana e au i tēnei wā. Kai roto katoa i ngā kōrero a ngā mātua, a ngā tūpuna i whakakanohi ai i ngā kōrero me ngā mātauranga o ngā mātua tūpuna ki mua i te aroaro o Te Taraipiunara i ō rātau wā.

Nō reira kāti ake, ko tēnā te kōrero a Te Minita. Hoi anō tāku ki a koutou e ōku rangatira, otirā, ki a tātau e Te Whare hei whakamāori ake i tērā āhuatanga kia kite atu ai koutou i te rerekētanga o te tū o Te Māori me ngā pire, me ngā ture a Te Pākehā. Koinā te rerekētanga. Kāti, e ōrite ana tēnei pire ki te nuinga o ngā pire pēnei nā kua kite atu ki roto i tēnei Whare.

Ō kāti, ko tetahi atu kōrero a te Minita e pā ana ki te “mandate”, nē? Te “mana whakahaere”— koinā tetahi kupu mō tērā tūāhuatanga—ā, ko reira ka kite atu anō i ētahi o ngā raruraru ka pā ki tēnei kaupapa. He raruraru nui tēnā. Ka kite atu mehemea ka whakaae Te Karauna, ka kōrero atu ki tēnei rōpū, ēngari kaua ki tēnei rōpū. Ka kōrero atu ki tēnei hapū, ēngari kaua ki tēnei hapū. He raruraru tēnā. Ka hoki atu anō au ki tērā kōrero āku e pā ana ki te whakapapa o tāua Te Māori, nē? He mea rerekē anō tēnā, kāti, ki te wahanga tuatahi o te pire.

Ka kōrero mai te pire mō ngā whakapapa me te hītori, me ngā tūkinotanga a Te Karauna ki a Rangitāne i roto i ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei. Me kaua tātau e pōhēhē ko aua tūkinotanga, ko te patu tangata anake, kāhore, engari ko te patu mana, ko te patu wairua, ko te patu i te mauri o ngā iwi, o ngā hapū o te rohe rā. Nō reira, i roto i te wahanga tuatahi, ka kōrero mai rā te pire mō tērā tūāhuatanga. I kite atu ahau i ngā pire katoa e pēnei nā, e ōrite ana ki tēnei. I roto i te wahanga tuatahi, ka whakairihia ake rā tēnei pire ki roto i te ture, i te tāpiritanga tuatoru o te Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. I kōrero tahi māua ko tōku tuakana mō tērā āhuatanga. Ka whakairihia ake rā koutou ki roto i te tāpiritanga tuatoru o taua pire, he mea whakahirahira tēnā. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana au ki tērā tūāhuatanga.

Kua tata pau hoki te wā ki a au, i āianei nā ka tahuri atu ahau ki te wahanga tuarua o te pire. E mea nei tēnei wahanga o te pire, ko te “cultural redress”, nē? Ko taua wahanga, ko ngā mea pai ki a au nei, ka taea e koutou te whiriwhiri me pēhea ngā rawa, me pēhea ngā taonga kōhuke kei raro i te whenua, kei runga anō hoki i te whenua; ko te kōhuke, ko ngā minerals, nē? Kei raro i te whenua, ko ngā mea kei runga i te whenua anō hoki. Ka kite atu ahau ki roto i taua wahanga, ka whakahokia atu. Ka taea e koutou te noho ki runga i te poari ki te whakahaere i ngā taonga kei roto i a koutou, arā, ko Te Awa o Manawatū. Ko ngā rawa, kua kōrero atu ahau mō ngā kōhuke me te kī atu, he mea pai te mahi ngātahi me ngā poari ā-rohe, ngā poari ā-motu, me Te Karauna anō hoki mō ngā āhuatanga nei.

Ko te mea pai ake ki a au i roto i tēnei āhuatanga, e tāpae atu ana ki te kōrero a Alastair Scott ka panoni e koutou. Ka taea e koutou te panoni i ngā ingoa Pākehā o tō koutou ake rohe, kia mārama pai ai te katoa ki te whakapapa, ki te hītori me te ingoa tika o taua rohe, he mea nui tēnā. Nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā tūāhuatanga.

Ko te wahanga whakamutunga o te pire, hoi anō, ko tētahi atu o ngā raruraru ka puia ake nei ki roto i ngā pire, ko te mana hoko tuatahi, ko te right of first refusal tērā. Aini tātau, koutou, ka āta wetewete ka pēhea koutou ki roto i tērā tūāhuatanga. I roto i ngā hēkona whakamutunga o taku tū i te rā nei, e mihi atu ana au ki a tātau, me te pai hoki ki te kite atu i ēnei tūāhuatanga e tutuki ana e tātau, e Te Whare ki mua i te aroaro me te kanohi o ngā kaumātua, whānau, tamariki, mokopuna o Rangitāne. Nō reira, ka tū au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire me te āhuatanga o tō tātau noho i te rā nei. Kāti ake rā e Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa!

[I will remain in the Māori language for the duration of my contribution. As a commencement point for me “The leader to the front and workers at the back”, that is my tribute to you, Tutehounuku. Each one of us has given a thought to our Creator in his considerations of our being seated here today and, furthermore, to make it safe for the visitors who have arrived within Parliament on this day. I truly acknowledge you, and will remain in awe of our Creator and that He extends his hand of care and kindness over us as we bow here. “The starry hosts of heaven abide there forever, immutable.”

I gather up the myriad of the deceased that the House bore here upon its back this day and place them before the ridgepole of our House. I mourn and pay a tribute to the dead, depart, return, farewell!

We of Māoridom celebrate the part of the year called Matariki. It is the star Puanga that has been hung up on Sky Father standing before us, even though I have read the modern publications and have stated, Pleiades is made up of innumerable stars. I reflect and consider that there are good times and there are bad ones, so they, the dead, to themselves and I bring the lines of the contribution back to us; my appreciation to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all, enough.

I endorse the Minister’s comments at the beginning of this part this morning. He has spoken to us about some aspects concerning this bill and about all the movements of bills, like this one, that settle Treaty matters of the moment and Māoridom’s grievances from the time Europeans arrived here right up to the present moment. The Minister has mentioned some of those situations to us and, as a starting point, I gather up some of the contributions he talked to us about, these things that relate to our Māori whakapapa.

I have been saying for a long time that the problem with the law is that it fences off the Māori. That is the trouble with the law. It will say that here is a Māori with his fence, and here is another Māori with his fence, and you, as an individual and collectively, must never shake hands, must never get friendly with each other, OK? But at the same, in English, you have “overlapping interests”. Mate, that is the situation in Māoridom, and do not say to me “Aww, this belongs solely to this iwi, you must avoid the mana and whakapapa of your mother and of your auntie as well.”, OK? That is a worry.

So despite the problems about Māori whakapapa, we must never think that it is solely to the blood, not at all; whakapapa is to the land, sea, waters, and mountains. One should never mistakenly think that it relates solely to humanity only, not at all! That indeed is a Māori attribute. I see that problem in the countless bills like this one, being thrown into this House again and again and again.

Therefore, I really commend the Minister and the Māori Affairs Committee, because the onerous task is left to the Minister and the Māori Affairs Committee to critique the commentaries and to determine who indeed has an interest in this bill, who gains from the benefits within this bill. Now that is a difficult job, a tough one. But I really think about the talk that Rangitāne bore with them on their backs in those times you collectively came before the Tribunal. It was there that we saw the mana of the whakapapa and the remedy for the matter we are discussing at this moment. It is in all the contributions by the parents and grandparents who gave a face to the contributions and knowledge of the ancestral forefathers before the Tribunal in their times.

So enough, that then is the Minister’s statement. Accordingly, mine to you, my esteemed ones, but at the same time to us the House, is to put a Māori perspective to that situation so that you can see the difference between how Māori view the situation and Pākehā bills and laws. That is the difference. And so this bill is similar to the majority of bills like this seen in this House.

Hold on, another statement by the Minister referred to the “mandate”, OK? The “mana whakahaere”—another word indeed for that situation—and therein will some of the other problems that relate to this matter be seen. That is a big problem. It can be seen whether the Crown agrees to talk to this group but not to this group. It talks to this hapū but not to this hapū. That is a big problem. And I go back again to that statement of mine about the whakapapa of ours, the Māori, OK? That is a different thing again, so enough, and now to the first part of the bill.

The bill talks to us about whakapapa and the history and about the violations by the Crown to Rangitāne over the many years that have gone by. We must not think mistakenly that it was just those violations and the killing of a person, not at all, but rather the assault on the authority, spirit, and life force of the iwi and hapū of that territory. Therefore in the first part, the bill talks about that situation. I have seen in all the bills like this that it is the same. In the first part, this bill is elevated in law, in schedule 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. My elder colleague and I discussed that situation. You were indeed elevated in schedule 3 of that Act, that is just wonderful. Therefore I commend you in that circumstance.

The time for me has nearly expired, and right now I turn to the second part of the bill. This part of the bill says “cultural redress”, OK? The thing in that part that is good for me is the fact that you collectively will be able to determine how to deal with the resources and the treasured minerals under the land, and above it as well; the kōhuke, the minerals, OK? The ones under the land and the ones above it too. I note in that part that the minerals will be returned to you. You will be able to sit on the board to administer properties within your area, namely the Manawatū River. In terms of the resources, I have spoken to you about the minerals and advocate that working collaboratively with regional and national boards and with the Government, as well, in regard to these circumstances is a good thing.

The aspect in this situation that is far better to me is that it is a provision to the contribution by Alastair Scott that you will amend. You will be able to adapt the English names to your very own region so that the entire whakapapa, history is much clearer, and the name to that region is the right one, that is an important thing. And so I commend that kind of thing.

The final part of the bill, and indeed one of the problems thrown up in the bills, is the right of first refusal, te mana hoko tuatahi. Shortly you collectively and us will carefully analyse that kind of situation. In the closing seconds of my rising today, I congratulate us and how nice it is to see these kinds of situations being completed by us, the House, before the faces of elderly ones, family, children, and grandchildren of Rangitāne. Therefore, I stand in support of this bill and for the manner of our sitting here today. Salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all!]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. In April last year I stood in the House in support of the first reading of the bill, and I can remember saying at the time that, like other Tauranga bills, this bill had been many years in the making. I certainly hope it will not be too much longer before we see the bill complete all its stages in the House.

To those in the gallery who have come here to witness this long-awaited day, tēnā koutou. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa. It is great to see you at Parliament.

First and foremost, I want to thank Ngāti Pūkenga for their patience and their willingness to keep engaging with the Crown over the past few years. We signed a deed for the comprehensive settlement of the historical Treaty claims in April 2013, more than 4 years ago. Ngāti Pūkenga are also part of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective, and, as we know, the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective deed had to be finalised before the Ngāti Pūkenga bill could be introduced. I am not going to go into the details of all the proceedings that took place over the past 2 years. Suffice it to say that Ngāti Pūkenga have shown great mana throughout, and I am very glad we can finally progress their iwi-specific settlement.

I want to thank the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their excellent job and for the rigour they have exercised in considering this bill and navigating the issues raised during the submissions stage. In fact, the select committee received only one submission—from the post-settlement governance entity—and I think that is a testament to the way Ngāti Pūkenga approached negotiations and engaged, both with the other Tauranga Moana iwi and their own claimant community. That submission supported the majority of the bill, but it raised an interesting point in relation to a standard condition for rights of first refusal (RFR) that it viewed as a possible impediment for obtaining properties in the future.

Select committee members took this concern very seriously. For reasons of consistency and fairness for all those groups that have already settled, the select committee agreed to retain this provision in the bill. RFR provisions do not allow for RFR land to be disposed of to another party on more favourable terms, and this means that the land could not be gifted to a charitable trust if it had not been gifted first to iwi.

I hope this alleviates the concerns expressed in the submission. I want to reiterate that the intent of the Crown through the settlement is to provide, in good faith, Ngāti Pūkenga with the opportunity to purchase the two RFR properties concerned by this clause, should they become surplus to Crown requirements.

I want to keep my remarks fairly short in this, the second reading. However, before I end I want to take a little time to acknowledge the passing of a beloved leader of Ngāti Pūkenga—and, indeed, of Tauranga—Te Awanuiārangi Black, who left us late last year. Saying that Awanui was a man of many talents does not come anywhere close to describing the true extent of his talents and achievements. From a young age, tribal leaders saw his potential and groomed him to become a key leader for Ngāti Pūkenga and for the region. He was a staunch advocate for Te Reo Māori, a talented kapa haka composer and performer, and a great teacher and educationalist. He was also very comfortable walking between Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā, and believed in standing up for his people and progressing all things Māori. This led him to hold a number of positions in local government, including as a member of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Mauau Māori constituency, to name just a few of his roles. His death is a great loss for Tauranga Moana and for our country.

Awanui was determined to make a difference for his iwi, and one way for him to do this was to become part of Te Au Mārō o Ngāti Pūkenga, the mandated entity of the iwi, in the early stages of the negotiations. He made a major contribution to negotiations. He always advocated a collective approach to negotiations. This bill is just one of many of his legacies that will improve the lives of people in Tauranga.

I look forward to the bill moving to its third reading in a timely manner. I also look forward to the final stage of the settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Pūkenga and to the bill being signed into law by our Governor-General. As the former chief Crown negotiator for the Ngāti Pūkenga negotiations, I am sure the Governor-General will take a particular pleasure in seeing this settlement come to an end. I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e tautokongia ana ahau i ngā mihi, mihi atu ki a koe e te tuakana e Tutehounuku mō ngā kupu whakarite, nau nei i whakapūakitia mai i te ata nei; nā reira, tēnā rā koe.

Kei te tautoko hoki ahau i wērā o ngā mihimihi ki ō tātou tini mate, o tātou mate huhua, me ngā kōrero nā Te Minita i naia tata nei, mō tērā o ngā tuākana a Te Awanuiārangi Black. E tika ana ngā hōnoretanga kua hipokina ki runga i a ia mō āna mahi, i a ia e hīkoi ana ki runga i te mata o te whenua. Tōna mate, he karanga tēnā ki a tātou ngā tāne Māori, kia rapu i te hauora, kia rapu i te āwhina, kia haere ki ngā tākuta, kia āta tiaki i ā tātou anō. Nā reira, e te tuākana, e Te Awanuiārangi: e moe, e moe, e moe atu rā. He tini ngā mate kei tērā, kei tēnā o ngā marae puta noa i te motu.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki tōku tuakana hoki a Checker Davis, kua hinga atu i nanahi atu rā. Ā, e takoto ana ki runga i tōku marae kei roto o Ngāti Manu a Te Kāretu. Me tērā hoki ki tetahi tauira nāku ako i whakaako, i ahau e tumuaki ana i Te Kura o Kaitāia, ko Chenei Ohlson, kua mate i taua ngārara, te mate pukupuku. E takoto ana kei roto i te kāinga o tōna whānau i te rangi nei. Nā reira, e ngā mate, haere; nā, ko rātou ki a rātou, ko tātou ki a tātou, huri noa i Te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, I am endorsing the acknowledgments, and so I acknowledge you, elder member Tutehounuku, for your words of prayer that you put together and expressed this morning; my appreciation and thank you very much.

I also endorse those tributes accorded to the myriad and vast number of our dead, and to the Minister’s comments just now in regard to that one of the elder kin, Te Awanuiārangi Black. The honourable words that were cast over him for his accomplishments while he walked upon the face of the land are apt. His death is a call to us Māori men to seek well-being, to seek help, to visit doctors, and to really look after ourselves, as well. Therefore, to you, elder sibling Te Awanuiārangi: sleep, rest, and slumber on. There are numerous deaths that occur at that marae over yonder, and those marae throughout the country.

I want to also pay a tribute to my elder sibling Checker Davis, who collapsed the day before yesterday. He is lying in state on my marae, Te Kāretu, within the region of Ngāti Manu. I pay a tribute, also, to that one Chenei Ohlson, a student I taught while serving as principal of Kaitāia School and who died as a consequence of that reptile, cancer. She is lying in state at the home of her family today. And so, to you, the deaths, depart; they, the dead, to themselves, and we to ourselves throughout the House.]

We tend to associate Ngāti Pūkenga with the area of Tauranga Moana, and that is because that is where they originate from. However, there is an outpost—a diplomatic mission station, I guess you could say—deep in the heart of the Te Tai Tokerau electorate. I just want to talk about the reasons why there is an embassy of Ngāti Pūkenga up north. It is actually a—well, it is a tragic story, but it is a rich part of our history. You may ask why Ngāti Pūkenga would be surrounded—you know, want to plonk themselves—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Yes, why?

KELVIN DAVIS: —right around Ngāpuhi. The sister Nanaia Mahuta says: “Yes, why?”. Well, it does go back to that well-known Ngāpuhi whakatauki that, loosely translated, means there are two types of Māori: those who are Ngāpuhi, and those who wish to be Ngāpuhi. But—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

KELVIN DAVIS: Ha, ha! But the story is that back in the 1800s, when Russell was the place where guns, ammunition, and other tools of the European could be found up north, a group from Ngāti Pūkenga was regularly trading between Tauranga and Russell. They were going up on this particular occasion to look for firearms, to purchase firearms, or to trade for firearms, and as they were coming past the Whangarei Harbour, one of the warriors on board wanted to get off there so he could go and visit his sister, whose name was Te Rore. Te Rore was the wife of a chief in the Whangarei area by the name of Wharepoaka.

So this warrior was let off while the rest of the contingent sailed on up to Russell, up to the Bay of Islands. When he got ashore, he was looking for his sister’s village, and as he was looking for it he did not realise he was being followed by a person—basically, someone was stalking him, I guess you could say. As this warrior bent down to drink from a stream, the guy came up, smacked him on the head, and killed him. He then—to cut a long story short—threw him in a hāngi and had him for dinner.

Word got back to the chief of the flotilla—a chief by the name of Moeroa Paretaura—and when word got to Moeroa, he spun around and came back to seek utu, or revenge. Word got out to the chiefs in the Whangarei area, with one of them being a famous chief from Te Parawhau by the name of Te Tirarau. Te Tirarau was actually an ally of a tupuna of Peeni Henare and mine, Pōmare, as well as of Peeni’s other tupuna Kāwiti. These days we say that those three had an alliance, the TPK alliance, which is not to be confused with the TPK—Te Puni Kōkiri—of these days.

So, anyway, Te Tirarau got to Pārua Bay, which is not far from the area where this person was killed. Moeroa came with his contingent and, basically, they came ashore and confronted each other. What prevented all-out war was, really, the fact that Te Tirarau conceded that the killing of that warrior was out and out murder and that Moeroa’s search for utu was a just cause. To stop the war from happening, they took Moeroa’s crew to the parcel of land where that young man was killed, and they said: “This land is yours. We’ll even extend it to such a size that you’ll be able to settle there.”

Hence, the name of that particular block of land is Pakikaikutu. It is barely a stone’s throw, or maybe a 1-wood, away from Whangarei Airport, across Whangarei Harbour. That piece of land is Ngāti Pūkenga’s, despite it being right in the heart of Tai Tokerau and surrounded by Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Wai. It is important that we remember and recall this history, because it is easy for that to be forgotten, and it is a beautiful part of our collective history.

Turning to the bill, I just want to touch on what the Minister did say about clause 103, and that is to do with the right of first refusal. It is something that was really only picked up in this bill by the submitter. The concern was that Māori would not actually have the right of first refusal, and that the right of first refusal might go to a charity. For the reasons that the Minister has explained, we decided not to make any amendment to that clause, just to be fair to any other iwi that had settled and because it is a standard clause in Treaty settlements. But it was interesting. We did take it very seriously. We got quite an amount of advice just to talk about that one clause around the right of first refusal.

I just want to touch now on the acknowledgments from the Crown. What happened to Ngāti Pūkenga is reflected across the country, but that does not diminish from the fact that they have been unfairly treated by the Crown over the decades and the years. One of the main points I want to make is that Ngāti Pūkenga did not take part in the war in Tauranga. They were committed to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They believed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and they believed that Te Tiriti would treat them well. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

The Crown, and only the Crown, was responsible for the outbreak of war in Tauranga in 1864, and its actions were a breach of Te Tiriti. Clause 8(4) says: “The Crown acknowledges”—and rightly so—“that, despite leading Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga to believe that their interests would be scrupulously respected, [that did not happen] … and the Tauranga District Land Acts of 1867 and 1868 unjustly extinguished the customary title of Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga in the land within the confiscation district,”.

I have only a few seconds remaining, but it is really important that we acknowledge that these claims are not a Treaty gravy train but that there were people whose lives were severely and irrevocably impacted on by the actions of the Crown, which has led to present-day loss of land, loss of mana, and loss of many, many things. That is the reason why we support this bill going through all its stages, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, e mihi atu ki a koe. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, ka mihi, ka mihi, ka mihi.

[And so thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and greet, commend, and thank you all throughout this House.]

It is indeed an honour, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to be able to stand and speak to the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty Settlement Bill in the second reading. One of the amazing things with this particular role, and being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and a member of this Parliament, is that we see right across the House, under the auspices of Treaty settlements, an opportunity to engage with Māori—an opportunity to engage and to hear about the richness of the korowai of all our iwi across the country. This particular iwi is no exception.

Ngāti Pūkenga’s tūpuna, their ancestors, have a very, very long and noble history, particularly when we talk about Toroa, who was the kaihautū or the captain of the Mātaatua waka. The whakapapa there, the ancestry, is very, very, very deep.

The other part of this, though, when we look at Pūkenga himself—and I appreciate and acknowledge the excellent history lesson that we got about the relationship of Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāpuhi. But also, when we look at the stories of Ngāti Pūkenga we see the incredible role that they played, particularly in upholding two things. One was actually the Treaty of Waitangi, and one was Kīngitanga. When we look at that, this particular iwi’s stories are of peacefulness and dependence on the rule of law. This is in some ways one of the hallmarks, I think, of the nobility and the incredible things that this iwi did, even though at the end they were subjugated, and it was a very, very dark time in their history.

But coming back to looking at the Ngāti Pūkenga bill, I think an important thing is reflected in the fact that there was only one submission. There was only one submission, which really showed the incredible work that was done to bring this about so that the iwi could actually continue that journey to where we want to take it—to the third reading and the Royal assent. The submission actually came from within Ngāti Pūkenga, from, in some ways, within the negotiating team. It came from Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga and it is about the right of first refusal (RFR).

I think we need to put it in a little bit of context, as to the way that the Māori Affairs Committee took on board this one submission and the work, the discussions, and the korero that we had to get to a place that we believed was of fairness. In our report we did say that we would actually acknowledge where we believe there should be a change. Obviously we were highly supportive, because Te Tāwharau raised the issue around the RFR.

The question of the right of first refusal was a provision within the settlement, and the submission was particularly around clause 103. In keeping with all the other settlements that contain the RFR provisions, clause 103 provides for the landowner, in this case the Crown, to dispose of its land as a gift for charitable purposes without triggering the RFR provisions. There is no reason for a clause like this to exist. For example, in some cases it is considered that the Crown should have the option of gifting land back to some person or organisation who actually gifted it in the first place. There also may be instances where the Crown wishes to gift the land to a charitable organisation that wishes to carry on the work that the Crown had been doing on that particular piece of land.

It was all very, very reasonable in other circumstances, but in this case Te Tāwharau would feel aggrieved, and we think quite rightly so—quite rightly so. This is one of the very, very few properties under the RFR mechanism that they had included in their settlement, through really complex negotiations with other iwi, and with this it was disposed of by the Crown without their right of first refusal being triggered. So when we looked at this, the view of the Māori Affairs Committee was that a charitable trust should not be preferred over the iwi. We did not think that there is any particularly good reason for this clause to have been included in the Ngāti Pūkenga settlement.

However, there were a number of other reasons why we did not recommend a changing of the provision. As I said previously, we noted, first of all, that this particular clause is in every RFR provision in every settlement. But we also noted the clauses in the deed of settlement—getting here via the deed to amend, which Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown had already agreed to. So that was a big thing—Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown had already agreed to do this, so why would we want to recommend for them to change it? So that was that. We did not think it is the role of our select committee to amend the legislation in a case like this, to create an inconsistency within the deed of settlement.

I do think that this clause should actually be reviewed. This particular clause around the RFR should be reviewed, as we have actually highlighted. I have highlighted it here, and we highlighted it at the Māori Affairs Committee—and we actually recommended that in our report. We recommended that in our report.

Ngāti Pūkenga has fought for many years to reach this point. The settlement is now within their sight. I really do want to acknowledge a lot of the work that has been done, which has been reflected in speeches in the House here this morning, the incredible work of the rakatira of Ngāti Pūkenga, and also the incredible goodwill that has been shown here so that they can actually move forward.

We have had speeches here in the House this morning acknowledging the fact that we do need to know the history and the stories behind it. I think that one thing has always been clear over the last few years that I have been here, and particularly in the Māori Affairs Committee: for all of our people, in a lot of ways, it is not actually about the commercial redress; it is actually about the apology, and a meaningful apology. That is what has been reflected here today in the speeches. This is what is being reflected to the utmost, I believe, in the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty settlement.

So on that note, I look forward—if we can get this bill through to the third reading before the House rises in August. So on that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei ka tū ake ki te tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koe, e Nuk, i tūwhera te arawhata ki Te Runga Rawa, kia tau iho mai ōna manaakitanga ki runga i a tātou mō tēnei o ngā āhuatanga, anā, ngā take Tiriti ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou! Ngāti Pūkenga, tēnei ka tāpiri atu i ētehi ō ōku nei whakaaro, ahakoa he iti; ka tāpiri atu, ka tuitui ki ngā kōrero kua whārikihia i mua i te aroaro o tēnei Pāremata.

[I rise to endorse the appreciations accorded to you, Nuk, the one who opened the stairway to the Almighty above so that his kindness descends upon us in regard to this one of the circumstances in regard to Treaty matters there to us all, so acknowledgments to us all. Ngāti Pukenga, I add some of my own thoughts, although small; I add and sew them on to the contributions that have been laid out here before this Parliament.]

I do not intend to take too long a speech in the second reading, except to acknowledge the efforts of Ngāti Pūkenga to bring their claim through this process and to its finality. The reason I am not going to take a long call is that the bill and the settlement pass on two fronts that are very difficult fronts and hurdles to get over. Firstly, in terms of overlapping claims—we heard previously, in the previous debate, my colleague Peeni Henare talking about the challenge of overlapping claims and the way in which Crown policy is applied and the way in which iwi would prefer to exercise their relationships by whakapapa, in connection to whenua and important places within their rohe.

Ngāti Pūkenga passes this hurdle, to the extent that it is evident in the way that the cultural redress mechanisms have been achieved. They have been talking to their neighbours and they have recognised that in order to extend their own association and connection to a place, it is probably a good idea to recognise those of others within the rohe as well, and you can see that through the joint arrangements. We also did not hear any opposition at the Māori Affairs Committee to the redress remedies that were being sought by Ngāti Pūkenga—again, a good sign that a lot of conversations had taken place. That is a challenging space to navigate, but if one were to come into this process and consider the amount of effort that is required to get to the select committee with relatively very few criticisms, I would say a lot of work has been done behind the scenes. So ka nui te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, Ngāti Pūkenga.

[So there is much appreciation to you, Ngāti Pūkenga.]

On the issue of commercial redress, Ngāti Pūkenga have demonstrated—and it was evident at the select committee—quite a strategic approach to their commercial redress, what was available and, in fact, what they might derive value from. They have been very smart. But here is a lesson to all of us: it is not how big or small your settlement is; it is how purposeful you design the intent of the settlement for the benefit of your people.

One of the things that was impressed upon me when Ngāti Pūkenga came to the table—and we asked them a few tricky questions. Obviously, we could not get away from the Hauraki issue, so as the representative for Hauraki I had to ask that question: was Hauraki reaching all the way down into Tauranga Moana through Ngāti Pūkenga? They were very diplomatic and took a non-partisan view on that, but beyond that the questions were really around what they intended to see as a benefit, an opportunity for their people as a result of their settlement. It had nothing to do with size or scale. It had everything to do with reconnecting their history back to their places where they expressed an association; it had everything to do with ensuring that those obligations, I guess, of the Crown, in terms of Ngāti Pūkenga specifically, were recognised as having being breached; and it had everything to do with the commercial opportunities that they saw could be gained from their settlement. So I want commend them on that part.

On the issue of clause 103—we did spend some time on it. It was of interest that Ngāti Pūkenga—certainly for the Treaty settlements that I have sat through—was the only iwi who had so clearly brought up this issue in a way that challenged us to really think about it. If we really come back to the point that the chair of the select committee made around the committee considering that a review was necessary—the review would be interesting to be able to, I guess, get a context for how this particular clause applies but, also, within the right of first refusal space, how effective that whole process was operating and whether the time notification elements were efficient or optimised a transfer. Also, there is the innovation that has been created within iwi to have internal rights of refusal and to be able to kind of trigger an improved process to build the capability of the iwi so it is an “and/and” approach.

So I think a review, in my mind, would be a way to signal to those who currently have settled and those who are yet to settle that it is always an opportunity to improve, innovate, and build on some of these mechanisms, which are, ultimately, designed to support the aspirations of iwi in their settlement process.

But on clause 103, what might the charitable purpose be? We could only go back to the history of Tauranga Moana and the way in which lands were gifted post raupatu and things like that to say: “Actually, by and large, we may be talking about churches.” One of the challenging conversations in the space of churches taking on lands either gifted or by other means transferred to them is how hard it is to get those lands transferred back to iwi. So there seems to be an underlining element to the representation that was brought to us, and I am aware—I think, if I recall, in the Ngāti Ranginui or Ngāi Te Rangi settlements there was a specific piece of church land that was desired in the settlement.

But it struck me that we are probably talking about a limited pool of charitable purposes that this clause might apply to, and it would harm no one to see whether or not—and I have heard what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said, that this is very rarely triggered—it has been triggered, and under what circumstances, just to get a more accurate feel for how real, or not, this particular issue is. Of course, we take the word of the Minister, and the select committee was in that situation, which is why no recommendation was made, but we did it based on the word of the Minister and advice of officials, rather than really combing through, from the time that this clause was inserted in the right of first refusal provisions to now, as to whether it has ever been triggered, what the circumstance were, and whether it created a prejudice against the iwi whose settlement the clause might have applied to—things like that.

As I said, I am not going to take a long call. I want to make the final point that Ngāti Pūkenga interests within the Manaia area in the Hauraki rohe are yet to be resolved. Perhaps, with the wilful insight of the Ngāti Pūkenga experience and the way that they dealt with their overlapping interests, the whanaunga up in Manaia might use that and draw on that as some opportunity to try to get through the current state that they are in so that they can also get ahead. It is not how big or small your settlement is; it is the intent of the purpose and vision that you have for your iwi to benefit your people in the next generation, and I think Ngāti Pūkenga has achieved that well. Tēnā koutou.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to speak to this, the second reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. This bill talks to the settlement for Ngāti Pūkenga, who are part of two collectives: the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective and the Hauraki Collective.

The bill, as has been discussed, received one submission from Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust, and a lot of focus has been on clause 103, the right of first refusal (RFR). I would like to briefly crystallise those arguments. First, if we can be clear what the right of first refusal in this deed of settlement is actually talking to: it is talking to two properties in Tauranga. The first is Tauranga Intermediate School, currently in the hands of the Ministry of Education, and the second is the army centre, currently in the hands of the New Zealand Defence Force.

The arguments that Te Tāwharau put up for why the exemption should not be included were threefold. First of all, it said that it is actually easy to ascertain whether RFR properties were originally gifted to the Crown and should, therefore, be subject to this clause. It gave the example that Ngāti Pūkenga has undertaken historical searches on the two RFR properties it is receiving and ascertained that neither were actually gifted. The second point it makes is that where there is no blanket RFR, other Crown-owned land continues to be available for charitable purposes, should that be required. The third point of the argument was that it was the antithesis of good-faith obligations on the part of the Crown to, on the one hand, offer redress and then, on the other, not to give them opportunity to take advantage of that redress.

The response from officials was twofold. We were told that, certainly, there is precedence through all of the existing settlements. Secondly, we were also told that the purpose for the RFR in the first place is that it is there on the basis to allow the owners to carry out their duties “to deliver programmes and initiatives” in the interests of all New Zealanders.” That notwithstanding, as you heard the chair, my good friend Nuk Korako, say, the Māori Affairs Committee pondered on this and thought that, really, we needed to make some comment.

Precedence reflects a view of a certain point in time, and if we were to “contemporanialise”, if you like, or make this current thinking contemporary, the select committee was of a view that the RFR may no longer have point and purpose for what it was intended. And so you see the recommendation that we review this for future settlements going forward.

This is just a very brief and short call. I just wanted to crystallise those arguments, totally support this bill, and continue to commend it to the House. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi nui ki te rangatira o Ngāti Pūkenga.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you all and an acknowledgment of huge proportions to the noble chief of Ngāti Pūkenga.]

I really want to talk about the right of first refusal (RFR) issue that has come up, because I was one of the people who were most exercised about this, but before I do that I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for engaging, because it did. I also want to acknowledge Ngāti Pūkenga’s passion to get to this point, the hard work, and the need to get this settled, because they put so much work into this settlement, and it is a credit.

I also acknowledge, as other speakers have, the passing of Te Awanuiārangi Black. He was one so young. You know, from my age—I am 20 years, or maybe a bit less, his senior—I just think of a young leader, who was, obviously, so capable and who provided so much. That is such a loss, and it is so mysterious—the way we lose these fantastic people. What that is for Ngāti Pūkenga, I can never know, but I just wanted to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge Ngāti Pūkenga for their concern about clause 103, because I have gone into this pretty deeply with them and I am not satisfied that we have finished. It is really good to hear other members of the Māori Affairs Committee acknowledge that this was the issue brought to them by Ngāti Pūkenga and say that we should consider a review.

I just want to go back over some of the aspects of what happened. I do not want to be mean, but I found the briefing from the officials very inadequate. We do not know a whole lot of things because we were not told. We asked for a briefing because we really wanted to understand. When tangata whenua bring such a serious issue before the committee, we really want to understand the historical meaning and implications and the precedent issues, and we got nothing. We got no information, and I felt that hampered us in making good decisions.

I also want to thank the Minister, because I went to the Minister about this—I went to Chris Finlayson. We had a meeting. He is always accessible, which is a great thing in a Treaty Minister. I asked him why this is here, and I have it in writing from him that there is no legal or policy reason for the clause that allows charitable trusts to have an option on Crown land before it is offered to iwi under the RFR. There is no legal or policy reason, and I have that in writing.

I also had a good discussion with the Minister about it. He said we could not change it, but he said that there is no legal or policy reason. I am emphasising that, because we cannot sit in this House and pass law that has clauses in it with no legal or policy reason. It is not right, and it is not good enough for us to say that precedent—because bad things have been allowed to happen in this past because this has not been properly examined, therefore, we will continue to do that.

This is why I think a review is the very least of what we should do, because if there is an issue that has got no legal or policy reason—and tangata whenua in other settlements may not have been aware of this. I have never heard it talked about until Pūkenga brought it to us, so people are not aware of it. When I have talked to other tangata whenua around the motu, they did not know about it, because a lot of us are not experts in the minutiae of the law and in the interpretation of those minutiae. So I think it is really important that we do have that discussion.

It is good to see the Minister back in the House, because I just want to thank him for—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh, I heard you were speaking, so I came back in.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Great. I want to thank him for being accessible on the issue. It is really important, because we need to have the conversation. I appreciate that historically over the last 22 or more years, when precedent is set and it is in all settlements because the clause was just there, even though there is no legal or policy reason, we need to seriously consider what we do about that.

I appreciate that the committee felt that it could not change the specific clause, and Ngāti Pukenga themselves are not trying to delay the settlement. They had no desire to delay the settlement by a lengthy negotiation on this clause, but they brought it to our attention for a very good reason, and that very good reason is that if there is no legal or policy reason for this, what do we do? I think review is one thing. I am interested in putting up, if Pūkenga wishes me to, a Supplementary Order Paper on this in the Committee stage, because Pūkenga did bring it in good faith. It is a very good-faith argument that they have made and, as Dr Shane Reti, the previous speaker, pointed out, they have investigated the issues behind this.

I think that there is a real need for us to take this very, very seriously. I mean, I am not a lawyer or an expert in these matters, but with all the settlements that have happened in the past, I still think that there is a matter of natural justice that can be addressed by reviewing this clause and thinking about whether we know how often it has ever been triggered—which we do not—what should be done about it, and whether we could do some sort of Māori purposes bill that actually removed it in terms of retrospectivity. I am not a lawyer, but I think we should consider these issues, and I think we should really consider the issue of justice at all times, particularly around Treaty settlements, because there is not relativity now, and many issues of precedent are worth considering.

I think that at the very least we need a body of academia to examine some of these anomalies that are in these settlements and the fact that there is no relativity—you know, it is very different. Even in the matter of money, what RFR meant 22 years ago and what market price was—some iwi got to buy their land, or had opportunities to buy land back, at market price 22 years ago. It is a totally different market price now, so things are not the same. There are not some kinds of absolutely consistent issues where you can read settlements and say: “Yep, we can’t change anything because it’s always been done this way.”

It is hugely diverse, and I think we need a lot more research and a lot more documentation so that we can understand whether there are more anomalies. What this brought up for me, when Ngāti Pūkenga came to us, was to ask what else there is. What are we also not examining? What assumptions are we making about things because they are precedents? Is it not time to not only review the right of first refusal but review the whole thing and actually ask ourselves some really hard questions? The current traditions around settlement law—are they all just? Are they exercising the best-possible approach that the Crown could possibly take? Maybe they are, but I do not think we have examined those lately, and I think we need help. It is not something we can do in 5 minutes in the select committee. I mean, it is something where the select committee would really appreciate knowing more on these issues, and we need to think about them.

Obviously, I am not going to be in this House after September, but I am really passionate that we do the very, very best we can, because the people who bring to us their blood, their sweat, and their tears—and I mean all of those things—deserve to know that we really know what we are doing and that we are not just following on from what we have always done. I know that the Minister is very serious about doing the best-possible job, and I know that the select committee is. But I think we need to re-examine some of these issues—including RFR—and recognise that there is not relativity in settlements, and ask what we are doing actually here and how we can make it better.

I just want to thank Ngāti Pūkenga, as well as everyone else, because I think the fact that, to my knowledge, they are the only people who have highlighted this in recent times takes nothing away from the significance of it, nor from their right to have it acknowledged. I would really like to see us examine this deeply, including—if that is their desire—having a Supplementary Order Paper on it. But, like everyone else, I am not here to say that this settlement should not proceed. I think this settlement is long overdue.

I would just like to acknowledge, as somebody who lives in the rohe of Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia, their extraordinary history of both good faith and resistance, their extraordinary effort through this settlement, and their ability to work with others, and what that means. So, notwithstanding this RFR issue—which I intend to pursue, whatever happens in my life next—I want to thank them for bringing it to us, and I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its consideration and concern that we review this. I look forward to the third reading. I look forward to the day of justice for Ngāti Pūkenga, and may it be fully a day of justice. Kia ora koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe anō, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia ki ēnei o ngā hunga mai i a Ngāti Pūkenga kua tae mai nei ki waenganui i a tātou i te ata nei; ēngari ki a au nei, e tika ana kia tuku i ngā mihi ki te rangatira a Te Awanui-ā-Rangi, nā te mea, i te wā i puta mai tēnei pire i roto i Te Whare i te tuatahi, i konei a ia, i haere mai ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Nā reira, ahakoa e mōhio nei i a tātou kei te ngaro atu tana tinana ki te tirohanga kanohi, e mōhio ana au kei konei tōna wairua e rererere haere ana. Nā reira, e kara, haere, hoki atu ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou mō te tangata! Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā te hunga e wairuatia i te rā nei, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you once again, Mr Assistant Speaker. I endorse the acknowledgments accorded to these ones of Ngāti Pūkenga who have arrived here amongst us this morning; however, to me, it is fitting that condolences be accorded to the esteemed Te Awanui-ā-Rangi, because when this bill appeared the first time in the House he was here and came to support this bill. Therefore, even though we know that his body is lost from view, I know his spirit is here flying around. So, friend, depart and return to the original home for us, mankind! The part for those who were spiritualised today is therefore done, I come back to us, the living, acknowledgments to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

It is a pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and participate in this debate on the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. Can I say that we have heard in this House this morning of the history pertaining to Ngāti Pūkenga and its establishment of an embassy, as my tuakana Kelvin Davis, the MP for Te Tai Tokerau, quite eloquently stated. I just want to say that because of that connection, my darling can also claim descent from Ngāti Pūkenga. She is probably wondering why she has not claimed it more vigorously than her Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhitanga.

Nā te mea, kua tae kē i ā tātou i te rā nei, nā, kua tau kē te kerēme o Ngāti Pukenga ēngari i a mātou i roto o Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi, kei te haere tonu. Ēhara i te haere; kei te whawhai tonu, kia ahatia? Ēngari, wēnā te āhuatanga o ēnei tūmomo mahi i ngā kerēme; korekau he hīkoi māmā, nā reira, kia ahatia?

[Because we have already arrived here instead today, the Ngāti Pukenga claim has now been settled, but we in Ngāti Hine of Ngāpuhi are still going. It is not a journey; it is a fight, and it is still going, but what business is it of ours? However, that is the situation in regard to these kinds of tasks about claims; it is not an easy journey, therefore, what does it matter?]

In making reference to a particular tribe who is yet to settle, I notice that Ngāti Pūkenga has a population, at the last census, of 2,175 members. While, on behalf of New Zealand First, I support this bill, it is with some envy that my particular tribe has still yet to settle, No. 1, and No. 2, the Paraone whānau is in excess of 5,000. I can tell you that, and yet we cannot even get a claim through. So it is with some envy—and perhaps I should invite the Minister back to the North, to talk to the Paraone whānau of that particular tribe, and we will certainly help the Minister to make a settlement in that regard. But I digress.

The other thing—I just want to remind us that it has been almost 4 years since the signing of the deed. I suppose, while it may sound a long period of time, I think in terms of the overall process that is not too bad. Of course, the important thing is that the story of Ngāti Pūkenga and the history of their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal is publicised and articulated to the rest of us.

I can recall when it was first introduced into the House that we had a visit from a local primary school. The Māori Affairs Committee had as one of its agenda items the recognition of the various land battles, referred to as the New Zealand Wars, and whether or not they should be added to the education curriculum and taught in schools.

This particular claim is about a military engagement, not initiated by the iwi but initiated by the Crown, in the face of having had members of their iwi sign the Treaty of Waitangi, and yet having to suffer the consequences of that Treaty breach at that time. I would suggest that the Ngāti Pūkenga Treaty settlement claim has a sad part about it, in terms of the effect that that engagement had on Ngāti Pūkenga. As we read the history of Ngāti Pūkenga, they had skills. They had the skills of a warrior tribe. They also had the skills of being able to converse, to communicate, with the unseen—in other words, they had priestly skills, which a lot of other iwi did not have to the same extent that they had.

As a consequence of that skill handed down from generation to generation, you will see that this particular claim is a testament to the skill that the Ngāti Pūkenga negotiators have, to be able to negotiate with other cross-claimants and to be recognised by other claimants in their claims. So I think that ought to be acknowledged, to see that Ngāti Pūkenga are able to carry on with those skills. That is why acknowledgment has been given to the passing of Awanui Black, because of the skills that he had. I know that he was a fierce advocate for Te Reo Māori. In fact, he sat on the board of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori language commission, when I was the acting CEO. He made it quite clear to me where his interests lay.

I do not have too much to say, other than to commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the third reading of this claim. Kia ora.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to support the second reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I just want to acknowledge the korero that has gone on in the House today about where this settlement bill has got to. I want to acknowledge that the commercial redress is $7 million, and there is right of first refusal (RFR) in relation to RFR lands for this iwi, as well as the cultural redress of half a million dollars for cultural revitalisation and $180,000 for marae revitalisation, as part and parcel of this particular settlement.

I just want to take a short time to acknowledge the members of Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust. You had an amazing task to do, and I think that you have come through admirably for Ngāti Pūkenga whānau. I just want to acknowledge the members June Pitman, and her alternate, Hori Parata; Jocelyn Mikaere from Manaia, and her alternate, Dawn Wihongi; Hoturoa Kerr from Tauranga, and his alternate, Donna Tukariri—the members of Te Tāwharau.

I also want to take this time to acknowledge the negotiation team, led by Rāhera Ōhia: the negotiator Shane Ashby; the late Awanui Black, of whom we have heard tributes here in the House today; Harry Haerengārangi Mīkaere; the manager, Āreta Gray; and the legal counsel, Dominic Wilson. These are the people who have worked very hard for Ngāti Pūkenga to get the bill to the second reading.

I, along with my colleagues in the House, look forward to the Committee of the whole House and the third reading, after which this bill gains the Royal assent. Without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker—I will get off my phone—ā, nei te mihi atu ki a koe, otirā, ki tēnei pire [and so I acknowledge you but at the same time this bill].

It was a very interesting debate that was had around this bill in regard to the right of first refusal (RFR) land. I want to acknowledge the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS). To be sure, the Crown is very good at negotiating now. It has had lots of practice at it. Things that may have been agreed to back in the day, with other, bigger iwi, are no longer agreed to. Those provisions are no longer provided for because our negotiators, on behalf of the Crown, have got very good at it. That is how they do their job. But we got to a debate about the RFR lands. RFR stands for first right of refusal. That is what we call those rights, but, in fact, we discovered they were not. They were sixth right of refusal. There was a whole list of other people who went through the process if you wanted to get some land back. There is a whole list of people that they go through, including charities—charities; any charity. It could be the “Fox Foundation for Advancing Little Foxes”. It could be any charity. We do not believe and we did not believe that the Foxes should have any greater right than the tangata whenua to have that land back in redress.

So the Māori Affairs Committee itself made note, and I want to read from the committee’s report. It says “Te Tāwharau argued that the clause is unfair because: the RFR properties in question were not gifted to the Crown”—the land was confiscated, in case people did not understand that—“[the] Crown-owned land continues to be available for charitable purposes”, and “Crown is not acting in good faith when it offers these lands as redress, but may ignore this redress in favour of any charitable organisation”—including the Fox one—“it decides should receive the land instead, consequently placing the land out of reach of the iwi.” We suggested, as a committee, that that clause, clause 103, should be removed, and charitable organisations, unless they are charitable organisations of the iwi, should not be able to have RFR land offered to them before the iwi.

And why should they? These lands were confiscated, and, again by its own admission, the Crown said they were confiscated unfairly through raupatu, following a war that the Crown initiated. The Crown initiated the war. This was not Māori people in the backwoods somewhere picking fights with settlers. Simply because they refused to sell their land, the Crown initiated war against them and then confiscated the entirety of all their landholdings. This settlement is for approximately $8,680,000, if I added those numbers up correctly from the previous speaker’s comments. Landless—they are sixth on the list behind a whole group of other people and charities, and their land was taken by confiscation after a war that the Crown initiated on them for refusing to sell their land.

Ngāti Pūkenga did not even take part in the war. They respected their commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. So the war that was carried out in the Tauranga Moana area: they did not even take part in it, and still their land was confiscated—still it was. In fact, it was said here: “The Crown acknowledges that, despite it leading Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga to believe their interests would be scrupulously respected, the confiscation/raupatu at Tauranga Moana and the Tauranga District Lands Act 1867 and 1868, unjustly extinguished the customary [right and] title of Te Tāwera and Ngāti Pūkenga”. And there it is. It actually did return some land, but it did not return it to the people. It returned it to individuals. It returned 98 acres—98.5 acres, actually, but they were returned to individuals and, again, their cultural interests in the land were lost.

This is at the heart of this and the issues that are going on in Tauranga Moana right now. They signed this Treaty settlement in 2013, and the redress will never match the hurt. The redress will never compensate for what was done. I will say it again: the biggest gift that Māori give to this nation is accepting Treaty settlement at all—at all.

Ngāti Pūkenga lost their land. They were dispersed between four small and scattered kāinga, not even on their own land, and since 2010 the matakahi, the tribe’s negotiating team, worked tirelessly to protect their interest. Matakahi is a traditional war movement; it is the wedge formation to split the enemy’s ranks, and they were formidable. They carried out their wedge negotiation: Rāhera Ōhia, Shane Ashby, Harry Mīkaere, Āreta Gray, Dominic Wilson, and the late Te Awanuiārangi Black. Three years of negotiating, and OTS, you guys are pretty good at negotiating now—the Crown, we are pretty good, but they are pretty good because they have history on their side. They have truth on their side. They have pain and hurt, and now, when they sign these settlements, they move from being parties of protest to parties of progress, and they take their people forward, accepting that $7 million and then a little bit more for this and a little bit more for that is never going to be good enough. It is never going to be good enough, but they accept it anyway, and they gird up their loins and they take a step into the future, and they get their people together.

And you know what? Awanuiārangi and Tommy Kapai Wilson, they had a whare that they called their dreaming whare—they called it something. That is not what they called it—the right to dream, the “Minister of Dreams”. They would sit there and they would talk about the future and their aspirations, and they let their dreams fly. This is what we can do. This is where we can take our people. When he passed away, at his tangi the people, the warriors who came out, said: “It’s OK. His No. 1 goal was to grow the puna—grow the puna of reo, grow the puna of knowledge, grow the puna of cultural history, of cultural action, of traditions, of revitalisation—and he did.” They all did, because they dared to dream. Despite what had happened to them and their people, at no fault of their own, ever, they dared to dream and they moved forward into the future.

So I am proud to stand here today as part of the Māori Affairs Committee, recognising the work of the Minister, of OTS, and of our chair and our committee to support this whānau to this point. Despite the pitiful pittance of a settlement that they will receive, they accept it and they move on. They are grateful and they hold their heads up because they are resilient and they are strong and they stand in the traditions of their ancestors and tell the world that we rise. No matter what happens, we rise. E te iwi, tēnā tātou katoa.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. “E taku rata tūtahi, e taku tiketike kua riro. E taku manawa kairākau, e te kaiwhiu taiaha, e te tohutohu tewhatewha, e te patu paraoa, e te mere pounamu, e tōku tuakana, e Awa, e tika ana te kōrero a tō iwi a Ngāti Pūkenga, “Hamuti wera, niho tetē. Ka tetē ōu niho ki runga i te puke o Ruapekapeka ki roto i a mātau, ko Kelvin, ko Nanaia, ko Pita, ko Ria, e noho mai nei. E tetē tonu ana ōu niho ki roto i ngā kupu o te pire e horahia ake nei.

E te tuakana i a au e pānui atu ana i ngā kōrero kai roto i te pire, ka kite atu ahau i ō tapuwae kai runga tonu i te mata o te whenua. He taonga, he tapu o ngā waihotanga iho ki runga i te mata o te whenua e auē nei, e tangi nei, e mapumapu nei, koutou o Te Pō, haere, haere, haere!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e Te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa! E tika ana te kōrero a tōku tuakana a Kelvin Davis, e pā ana ki te wāhi whenua o Pakikaikutu. Ka hoki anō au ki ngā rā ō nehe ki te taenga mai o Te Waka o Mātaatua ki runga o Aotearoa e horahia ake nei. Anā, koia rā anō tetahi o ngā hononga o Te Tai Tokerau ki a Ngāti Pūkenga, e kōrerohia nei e tātau i te rā nei. E mōhio ana tātau, ko te tupuna rongonui o Ngāti Pūkenga, anā, koia rā tērā ko te teina o Tūhoe-Pōtiki ki runga i Te Waka o Mātaatua! E mōhio ana tātau katoa i te hītori o taua waka, kua riro atu ki a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau Te Waka o Mātaatua hei tiaki!

Kia kaua e pōhēhē ngā uri o Mātaatua, ka tīmata, ka mutu anō ki roto i te rohe e whakataukītia nei, mai, i “ngā Kurī o Whārei ki …”, ai kua wareware ahau! Ka riro atu ki roto i a Tauranga te roanga ake o Te Waka o Mātaatua ēngari, ko tāku e kī atu nei, mai i Ngā Kurī o Whārei, atu ki Tākou ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau, te takotoranga o Te Waka o Mātaatua i ēnei rangi. Kāti, te tuituia tātau ki roto i ngā kōrero o tō tātau pire.

Kua kaha kōrero Te Whare mō te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kai roto i te pire. Ko te mea tuatahi, ko te whiti kotahi rau mā toru, clause 103, kua kaha kōrero nei Te Whare mō te āhuatanga ki te mana hoko tuatahi, arā, te right of first refusal. E tautoko atu ana au i tērā tūāhuatanga, kia arohaehae e tēnei Whare, me ngā rōia mōhio nei ki ngā nekehanga o tēnei tūāhuatanga, kia kite atu i tetahi huarahi pai ake ki taku titiro ki ngā kupu kei roto i te pire. I te pire tuatahi o te rā nei, i kōrero atu ahau mō tēnei tūāhuatanga, te mana hoko tuatahi nē? Me te kī atu, ko ngā whakapapa o Te Māori, e kore e taea te wete! Ko ngā āhuatanga o te ture, ka taea te wete! Nō reira, ka tautoko ahau i te whakatau o Te Whare, o ngā mema o Te Whare, ko Nanaia Mahuta, ko Catherine Delahunty. Rongo atu ahau i te kōrero a Tutehounuku Korako e tautoko atu ana i tērā tūāhuatanga. Ko ahau anō tēnā e tautoko atu ana!

Ki te wahanga tuatahi o te pire! Kua kōrero atu ahau mō te āhuatanga o te whakapapa, kore e taea te wete, kore e taea te karo, ēngari i te ture a Te Pākehā, ka taea te wetewete. Ko ngā whakapapa me ngā hītori ka rārangihia ki roto i te pire, tēnei e tautoko atu ana i ngā uri o Pūkenga, i ngā uri a Kūmaramaoa, ngā uri a Rongopoipoia. E tautoko atu ana au kia riro ki a rātau te whakapāha a Te Kāwanatanga, ka riro ki a rātau, ngā āhuatanga katoa kai roto i te wahanga tuatahi o tēnei pire.

Huri tū atu ki te wāhanga tuarua o te pire. Ko tetahi o ngā āhuatanga pai te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire, anā, ko te manatū, ā, ko te tikanga o Te Manatū Ahu Matua, he aha rā tēnā? Anā, ko te primary industries tēnā nē? Ko te primary industries, he mea tēnā, te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire, te kī atu te tohutohu ki Te Manatū Ahu Matua, mō ngā take hao ika, mō ngā take mātaitai ki roto i ngā rohe kua whakaritea mō Ngāti Pūkenga ki roto i te pire nei, e tika ana hei tohutohu i Te Manatū Ahu Matua te mahi ngātahi me Ngāti Pūkenga, me ngā tāngata katoa o Tauranga Moana ki te whakarite, ki te whakapakari, ki te hauhake, i ngā hua me ngā tini o Tangaroa ki roto o Tauranga Moana. Nō reira, he mea pai tēnā te kite atu ki roto i te wahanga tuarua o te pire.

Huri tū atu ki te wāhanga tuatoru o te pire, kua kōrero mai ētahi o Te Whare i te rahi o te pūtea ka riro atu ki a rātau. Ka kōrero mai i te hiahia o Ngāti Pūkenga mō te āhua o te mana hoko tuatahi ki roto i wā rātau wāhi, me te hiahia ka riro ki a rātau ngā whenua me ngā whare papai rawa atu o tērā rohe, kia kaua e riro atu ki a rātau, ko ngā tūmatakuru, me ngā parakipere anake ki a rātau! Ka riro ki a rātau ngā wāhi whai rawa! Ka āhei a Ngāti Pūkenga ki te kake ki ngā rangi, ki ngā taumata e hiahiatia ana e rātau. Nō reira, ka tautoko atu ahau i tērā tūāhuatanga, me te hiahia kia hoki mai anō tātau katoa mō ngā nekehanga o te pire, tae noa atu ki tōna tutukitanga ki roto i te pānuitanga tuatoru o te pire.

Kāre au i te takaroa i ngā kōrero ēngari, ki roto i te wahanga e whai ake nei mō te pire, kāre e kore ka āta wetewete tātau i te whiti, kotahi rau mā toru, arā, te clause 103, ki roto i te nohoanga o te Whare ki te āta wetewete i te pire, ki roto i ngā marama e tū nei. Nō reira, kāti ake i konei e Te Māngai o Te Whare, me ngā āpiha ka kite atu ahau ki roto i Te Whare, e whakarongo mai ana, me Te Minita e kawe nei i te pire ki roto i tō tātau Whare. E mihi atu ana ki a tātau, tēnā koutou katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will remain speaking in the Māori language. To my stand-alone rātā tree, my lofty one that has gone, my wood consuming heart, exponent of the taiaha, instructor of the tewhatewha, the whalebone patu, the greenstone mere, my elder sibling, Awa, the proverb of your Ngāti Pūkenga tribe is correct: “Hot faeces, bared teeth”. Your teeth bared on Ruapekapeka hill within us, Kelvin, Nanaia, Pita, and Ria sitting here. Your teeth are bared still in the words of the bill spread out here.

Elder sibling, as I was reading the accounts within this bill, I saw your footprints are still there upon the face of the land. What you have left behind upon the face of the land is prized and sacred that you of the void, cries, laments and sigh repeatedly for, go forth, depart, farewell!

I bring the lines of the contribution back to us the House; acknowledgments to us all. The contribution by my senior colleague Kelvin Davis about the land at Pakikaikutu is correct. I go back once again to the days of ancient times, to the arrival of the Mātaatua canoe upon Aotearoa spread out here. That, then, is one of the connections of the Far North to Ngāti Pūkenga we are talking about on this day. We know that the famous ancestor of Ngāti Pūkenga is indeed the younger brother of Tūhoe-Pōtiki on the Mātaatua canoe. We all know the history concerning that canoe, that we of the Far North have the Mātaatua canoe and are looking after it.

Descendants of Mātaatua must never think mistakenly that the region of the Mātaatua begins and ends in the region quoted in the saying: “From the dogs of Whārei to—”. Oh gosh, I have forgotten it. Tauranga can claim that the Mātaatua canoe was there for a longer period of time but I proclaim that from the Dogs of Whārei to Tākou in the Far North is the resting place of the Mātaatua canoe these days. Enough, we must weave it into the commentary of our bill.

The House has spoken out strongly about the feature of the comments in the bill. The first one is namely clause 103, and the House has strenuously debated the function of the right of first refusal. I endorse that circumstance and that it be critically analysed by this House and by lawyers who are knowledgeable in the movements of this feature to find a better way, as I see it in the words in the bill. In the first bill today I commented on this function, the right of first refusal—OK? I said that Māori genealogies can never be disconnected but aspects about law can be disconnected. Therefore I endorse the ruling of the House, of the members the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and Catherine Delahunty. I heard the contribution by Tutehounuku Korako endorsing function. I am another one endorsing it as well.

To the first part of the bill I have spoken about the aspect relating to the genealogy where it cannot be disconnected and cannot be evaded, but Pākehā law can be dismantled. In regards to the genealogies and historical accounts listed in the bill, I endorse these with the descendants of Pūkenga, Kūmaramaoa, and Rongopopoia. I endorse that they receive the Government’s apology and all properties in Part 1 of this bill.

I turn now to Part 2 of the bill. One of the positive aspects seen in this bill relates to the ministry, and in particular to the code of the Ministry for Primary Industries, and what indeed is that? They are the primary industries, OK—a thing seen in this bill to advise the Ministry for Primary Industries on matters relating to fisheries, shellfish, and seafood in the regions considered for Ngāti Pūkenga in this bill, which are appropriate for the Ministry for Primary Industries to advise and work collaboratively with Ngāti Pūkenga, and all of the people of Tauranga, to organise, strengthen, and harvest the seafood that Tangaroa the sea god offers in the sea of Tauranga. So that is a good thing to see in Part 2 of the bill.

Turning to Part 3 of the bill, where some members of the House have commented on the size of the funding that they will receive. They told us about Ngāti Pūkenga’s desire to have the right of first refusal over their lands, that they also wanted some of the better lands and housing of that area, and that they do not end up with land covered by thorny shrubs and blackberry but end up getting places that are highly productive. Ngāti Pūkenga will be able to ascend the heavens and reach the levels that they want. And so I endorse that situation, but I do want us all to come back for the movements of the bill until its conclusion in the third reading of the bill.

I am not prolonging the contributions, but without a doubt we will analyse the part that follows about clause 103 carefully in a sitting of the House to analyse the bill critically in the months to come. And so enough at this point in time, Mr Assistant Speaker and officials that I can see listening in the House with the Minister who brought this bill into our House; I acknowledge us and you all.]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. In April this year I went to Mangatangi Marae in the heart of the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho to sign the deed of settlement with this great iwi. Some 2 months on from the signing ceremony, I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill, which like many others has been so many years in the making. It has been over 4 years since the agreement in principle was signed, and despite the time it has taken, I have never had any doubt we would get to this stage.

To all those who have worked so hard to make today possible, I offer my most sincere thanks. Nanny Mere Taka, Tokoroa Pompey, Barney Kirkwood, Te Raha Ngarengari, and their various tūpuna before them began this journey many, many years ago. They are in our thoughts today. I also want to acknowledge the various members of the negotiation team, starting with Ted Ngātaki and Warahi Paki; the lead negotiator, Dennis Kirkwood; and all those involved in the negotiation team for the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust. Never have the words of Te Pūea Hērangi rung so true: “Mahia te mahi hei painga mō te iwi.”—work for the betterment of the people. These negotiations have been long and complex, so I acknowledge the hard work, the commitment, and the perseverance to achieve an enduring settlement for this iwi. I also acknowledge the Crown team, officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, and supporting Crown agencies.

Let me say something about the chronology of negotiations. The settlement road commenced in 2003, when the Ngāti Tamaoho lands and resources claim was lodged by Ted Ngātaki, followed in 2008 with the Ngāti Mahanga, Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Apakura (Tahapeehi) lands claim, and the Ngāti Āmaru and Ngāti Pou lands claim, which was lodged by Ben Katipa.

In April 2010, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust to represent the iwi in negotiating a comprehensive Treaty settlement. The trust and the Crown signed terms of negotiation in October 2010, and an agreement in principle was signed in December 2012. During this period, Ngāti Tamaoho were not only busy negotiating the best-possible settlement for their iwi but they were also navigating the complex waters—and, indeed, they are complex—of collective negotiations in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ngāti Tamaoho signed the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau collective redress deed in September 2012. After a 2-year hiatus, Ngāti Tamaoho and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement in December last year.

As is always the case for a first reading, I want to take a moment to reflect on the history of the relationship between the Crown and the settling iwi. It is a long history of gradual but constant land loss and of conflicts that severely impacted on Ngāti Tamaoho.

Prior to 1840, their rangatira sought to develop commercial relationships with Pākehā settlers by entering into land transactions. After Crown-appointed land commissioners investigated these pre-Treaty transactions, the Crown granted land to Pākehā settlers, but retained 400 acres of so-called surplus land in which Ngāti Tamaoho had interests. After the signing of the Treaty in 1840, Ngāti Tamaoho sought economic opportunities by selling land to the Crown. Despite Crown assurances that one-tenth of the land transacted through pre-emption waiver sales would be retained for public purposes especially for the benefit of Māori, the Crown later abandoned the policy. This is an all too familiar story for many iwi. The benefits they expected to enjoy from selling the land were not realised. Crown purchasing activities contributed to tension and, ultimately, to armed conflict between Ngāti Tamaoho and neighbouring iwi.

Can I now turn to a very dark episode of the Crown’s relationship with Ngāti Tamaoho. In 1863 the Crown required Māori in South Auckland to swear an oath of allegiance or vacate their settlements. The Crown did not give Ngāti Tamaoho sufficient time to understand the oath, and despite this iwi never having been in so-called rebellion, Crown troops burnt buildings and looted property at Pōkeno prior to the invasion of the Waikato. The Crown unfairly labelled most of Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels, evicted them from their settlements, and confiscated most of their remaining lands.

This is an acknowledged moment of our shared history, and I wish to reiterate part of the Crown apology that I presented to the iwi in April. The Crown sincerely regrets unfairly labelling Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels and confiscating much of its remaining land. The Crown also unreservedly apologises for the hurt and ongoing grievance caused by the burning and the looting of Pōkeno. The Crown attacked the settlement prior to its invasion of Waikato, despite Ngāti Tamaoho never having been in rebellion.

By 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho had lost most of their land. Many experienced severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions. Something that every member of this House should note is that the children of the iwi experienced discrimination and segregation—and segregation—at a State-run school in Pukekohe. One law for all did not apply to Ngāti Tamaoho.

Pākehā settlement in the Ngāti Tamaoho rohe resulted in significant environmental modifications, over which Ngāti Tamaoho exercised little control. Introduced flora and fauna had an adverse impact on traditional Ngāti Tamaoho resources like eels, while dam construction and wetlands reclamation resulted in significant environmental damage. As a result, they became virtually landless. They have lost their autonomy and their connection with their environment and have suffered from severe social and economic deprivation. It is those facts that led us to the negotiating table, and that is why we have a settlement with this iwi.

The settlement package contains an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural redress, and commercial redress. Other speakers can go into the particular aspects of the settlement, because in my speech I wanted to emphasise the facts of what happened and why we are here.

I mentioned at the deed of settlement signing ceremony what could be called a statement of the obvious. It is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Tamaoho for the loss and prejudice they have suffered. I therefore acknowledge their generosity in graciously accepting the redress contained in this settlement package, and I certainly hope that it marks a new beginning in the relations between the iwi and the Crown.

Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to restore its honour and alleviate what can only be described as an acute sense of grievance, and the Crown certainly looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Tamaoho based on respect for the Treaty. I consider that the bill needs to proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Mōkau ki runga, ko Tāmaki ki raro, ko Pare Hauraki, ko Pare Waikato te kaokao o Pātetere, ko Mangatoatoa ki waenganui, hoki ake mai ki Te Nehenehenui. Tēnei ka tū ake ki te mihi atu ki a Ngāti Tamaoho i tēnei rā.

Ka hoki ngā mahara ki tērā o ngā kuikuia i noho mai i waenganui i a koutou, tērā ki a Mere Taka. I te wā e kaha ana a ia ki te kohi i ngā kōrero o Ngāti Tamaoho i roto i tōna oranga, kia mōhio pai ai ngā whakatipuranga ngā āhuatanga kei waenganui i a koutou, anā, ka tū mai ki tēnei rā. Ka whakaaro ake ki tērā o ngā mea o Mangatangi, ko Toko Pompey tērā, tērā kaiwhakangahau, me kī, te manawa ki ngā āhuatanga o tōna kāinga a Mangatangi. Ka nui te mahara ki a rāua, ki a rātou katoa i huri ki tua o te ārai.

Nō reira, i tēnei wā ka whakaaro ake me pēwhea pai te tīmata i tēnei kōrero. He maha ngā whakaaro i roto i a koutou nei tutukitanga, tērā ki tō mātou nei kuia rongonui a Nāneko Minhinnick me tōna hari ki te kaupapa nui, ngā take Tiriti e pā ana ki Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa ki mua i Te Taraipiunara. Ka whakaaro ake ki tōna āhuatanga hei whakatīnanahia i ngā whakaaro o te painga o Te Iwi o Tainui kia tū motuhake tātou ki Tāmaki Makaurau, ki ngā peka katoa o tērā rohe i kīia nei ko Tainui waka.

Nō reira, ko rātou ngā kaihautū, me kī, o te whakaaro. Nā rātou anō i whakatō te kākano, kia kore ai e ngaro ō mātou nei hiahia ki te tutuki i ēnei o ngā āhuatanga, nō reira, ka nui te mahara ki a rātou katoa i hikihia mai ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou.

[Greetings everyone. Mōkau is above, Tāmaki is below, Pare Hauraki, Pare Waikato, the armpits of Pātetere and Mangatoatoa, are in the middle, and then back up to te Nehenehenui. I rise on this day to accord a welcome to Ngāti Tamaoho.

Thoughts go back to that one of the elderly womenfolk living there amongst you, to that Mere Taka. During the time that she was capable and healthy, she gathered up stories about Ngāti Tamaoho so that generations would be better informed about aspects within you, and eventually rise up on this day. I reflect upon that one of the ones of Mangatangi, that Toko Pompey, that entertainer, shall we say, the heart in regard to aspects about his settlement, Mangatangi. Recollections about those two are much; in fact, about all of those who have about-turned and ended up beyond the veil.

So at this moment I am thinking about a good way to start this contribution. Within your conclusions are many ideas, and in particular that one about our famous elderly matriarch Ngāneko Minhinnick and her joy in regard to the important proposal concerning Treaty matters with respect to Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa before the Tribunal. I think about its situation in terms of implementing the thoughts of those back home and those of the Tainui tribe, as a stand-alone to those ideas at Auckland and at all the branches of that area called the canoe Tainui. Therefore, they are the ones in control of the thought, let us say. They indeed planted the seed so that our aspirations to fulfil these ones of the circumstances will be lost, therefore the recollection of all of them is huge now that it has been lifted over to us. My appreciation to you collectively.]

Minister Finlayson and members, I want to stand and support the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. On a number of fronts, it causes me to reflect on a number of things. I was there at Makaurau Marae at Ihumātao in around about the mid-1980s—1984, I think—when the Wai 8 Treaty claim was held. I was just a teenager. All we did was make the cups of tea and make sure the kaumātua were OK. But, in doing so, I witnessed rangatira such as Hēnare Tūwhāngai, and one of the things that he said at the time—it stands out—as he gave his presentation before the Waitangi Tribunal was: “E kore tātou e ngaro, he tāhere waka nui.”—we will never be lost, because we come from the hull of a great canoe. At that time, when Ngāneko Minhinnick brought the Wai 8 claim and gave evidence to the tribunal, a lot of work had happened within the tribe and from across the tribe—all quarters—to be able to take supporting submissions and present them in what was then a very new process.

The hīkoi to Waitangi had happened. Koro Wētere was Minister at the time. There was a law change to make the hearing of evidence retrospective—in 1985, that was imminent—and we were just kids witnessing this kind of a process. There are two people I mentioned previously, Mere Taka and Toko Pompey. At the time Toko Pompey was considered a rangatahi—he presented evidence on that basis—and Mere Taka was a local historian who provided much of the evidence for the raupatu claim but, significantly, was a major contributor and submitter to the Wai 8 claim.

Why do I mention this in relation to the Ngāti Tamaoho settlement? Much of the historical record in relation to the natural resource environment was sourced from the Wai 8 claim. You need not look too far, in terms of a number of interests within Tainui waka, then to the Wai 8 claim to understand the genesis and the emerging thoughts that were falling out from the Wai 8 claim across the iwi about how we could consolidate our interests as kaitiaki in the first instance but to ensure that when development happens within the rohe, we have a critical ability to have a say. The genesis really was within the Wai 8 claim, and I note that it is one of the claims that is mentioned here.

I want to acknowledge all those who have worked tirelessly and hard on behalf of Ngāti Tamaoho—Dennis Kirkwood, Te Roto Jenkins, Gordon Katipa, Nicholas Maaka, Tori Ngātaki, Panetuku Rae, Lynette Taka, George Wheatley, and Kiri Wilson—because they have really tried to do as much as they can. The Minister made a comment about the time that it has taken to bring this together. Again, there was a lot of eagerness when Doug Graham, in around about 2008 or so, went up to Auckland to try to consolidate those interests in Tāmaki that were not settled in the Waikato raupatu 1995 claim and primarily extended into Auckland, because there was still residual non-raupatu interests across that area, certainly within the Tainui consolidation of hapū and iwi up there. So there was a lot of optimism that there would be a way of working through this.

Ngāti Tamaoho have continued with their aspirations. It is clear in terms of the redress that they have expressed in relation to Hunua, significantly, that they held on to the relationship—which they wanted to express again—to the rohe but, importantly, to their waterways. I read with interest in schedule 1 about the range of connections and associations that they wanted clearly expressed and it is of no surprise, to the extent that Ngāti Tamaoho have always maintained mana whenua where they have existed in Papakura right down into Mangatangi. They are very accommodating in the way in which they work with local government, business stakeholders, people coming into the rohe, and horticulturists as well, because we know Pukekohe is a food basket for Auckland. Ngāti Tamaoho has such relationships across the Pukekohe area, and I am sure the local member would agree that they are quite immersed very strongly into the community.

It is pleasing to see that they have got to this point where they can bring their settlement into the House and think about how they organise for the whānau. Where they have expressed their interests, there are already things happening that I am aware of. They are wanting to ensure that they can not only express their cultural connection to the area but, I think, be a part of a future consideration around opportunities. The Hunua Falls, in particular, is a well-travelled place, and it is a place that is loved. Some of these other smaller places are renowned locally within the iwi for food-gathering places and also recreational and resting places.

It is a real pleasure to see Ngāti Tamaoho get to this point. They are a part of the Waikato raupatu settlement that was achieved in 1995. There are a lot of challenges within Waikato around managing those Treaty settlement interests that are beyond the raupatu settlement. But as time goes by, and as people mature, I think that there will be a stronger way of ensuring that there is an and/and capability that has been built up through the Treaty settlement space and within larger collectives of iwi. I know that that is a vision of Ngāti Tamaoho, and it is certainly an opportunity for the descendants across all of Waikato.

So without too much more, I want to wholeheartedly support this bill. I want to ensure that as the select committee—and I hope that I am on the select committee, to consider it—goes through the process of considering the Ngāti Tamaoho legislation, the context of those discrete but smaller bits of claims that exist within Auckland need to be resolved in some shape or form, and they are such that it may require more discrete approaches. It may be something that you have given a bit of thought to, Minister.

I mention Ngāneko Minhinnick in the last few seconds I have. Her passion was to ensure that those interests of Ngāti Te Ata and Maioro and the protection of the wāhi tapu there could be advanced. That is a great hope still of her family and I hope that that is an opportunity that can be taken up in the years to come. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe anō e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, huri noa i te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. It is indeed my pleasure to be able to stand to speak in the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I want to thank the previous speaker, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for giving us a very good overview of the rohe—the takiwā, actually—of Ngāti Tamaoho. It takes me back to when I was at Hato Tīpene College, because we used to have a number of representatives from Ngāti Tamaoho come, particularly during the times of celebration at the school but also during the kapa haka. We had a great kapa haka group, and a number of waiata, or the items, actually came from that particular area, so I want to acknowledge that.

I think acknowledgments also are really important, particularly—as has been done previously—around those who have passed on into the long night and who were very, very serious players in taking this on the journey to where it is today. So I acknowledge those who have passed on. I also acknowledge those who have worked tirelessly, and continue to do so, and they were acknowledged by the Minister and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

I think the important thing to do is to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, particularly for his work on this particular piece of legislation. As we know, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, and also right across there, there are a number of iwi in those areas, and it is important that we actually address the claims and the concerns as we move through so that there is a kotahitaka thing going on, particularly to include everyone.

The Treaty settlements process, again—and we have talked many times about this—is indeed a healing process, and this particular Treaty settlement is no exception. When we look at the restoring of the partnership between iwi and the Crown—and it was promised as far back as 1840 under the Treaty—it is about providing iwi with an opportunity to look forward to plan for the future, as we all know, and that is really very much the essence of this particular Treaty settlement as well. But before all that can happen, as we also know, it is important that there is a meaningful acknowledgment of the wrongdoings in the past. In the case of Ngāti Tamaoho, the wrongs committed by the Crown were very, very many, and, unfortunately, the consequences were devastating.

When we look at Ngāti Tamaoho, by all accounts this was an iwi that actually welcomed the opportunity to form relationships with Pākehā settlers, and also with the Crown. They welcomed the economic opportunities of trade, and even land transactions. But little could they have anticipated the way these opportunities would be undermined by the Crown’s bad-faith dealings. This was highlighted by the speech from the Minister. The Crown retained land that it had never purchased, and failed to reserve the tenths—the tenths—that it actually had committed to. Ngāti Tamaoho saw benefit in loyalty to the Crown, even while sharing their aspirations for Kīngitanga. I think that is a very important part of this. They were trying to actually deliver a partnership—a partnership with the colonial settlers, and a partnership that was not only a physical partnership but also one about whakapapa. It was also about ancestry, as well—deeply ingrained into the ethos of these people, of this iwi, Ngāti Tamaoho.

While the Crown’s actions gave iwi every reason to be distrustful and to rebel against a regime that demanded both their loyalty and their land, Ngāti Tamaoho, in their passiveness, did not rebel. They did not rebel. Their loyalty to the Crown was rewarded by Crown troops with the inaccurate labelling of their people, Ngāti Tamaoho, as rebels. They were actually branded as rebels, resulting in their eviction and the confiscation of most of their land. When we look at the title to the little remaining land that was gifted, there was some land that was gifted to individual Ngāti Tamaoho whom the Crown considered to be loyal, but they were very, very few. The land was alienated, actually, from iwi ownership. It was just individual ownership, not iwi ownership. That also went against a lot of the ethos about how Māori actually look at land. It is actually about a collectivisation, as opposed to an individual right.

This is now a landless iwi. Taking that on board, they watched as Pākehā settled their lands, changed their traditional environment beyond recognition, and adversely affected their traditional resources. You only have to travel across the Bombay Hills through into South Auckland and into that area and you can see the huge transformation and how economically viable it is, but this was land that was originally owned by this particular iwi, Ngāti Tamaoho. The redress provided in this deed of settlement seeks to provide some reparation for the harm that was caused, but it cannot, and will not, compensate Ngāti Tamaoho for the vast amounts of land that I have just described, or for the economic potential that this land has actually given.

They find themselves today, as I said, landless but also bereft, actually, of the commercialisation that they could have benefited from. What the commercial redress here does, however, is provide an economic base for future development. It provides an opportunity for the iwi to actually be in charge of their own destiny. It provides in some ways, too, their right of tino rakatirataka, and their right to stand, finally, on their land, on the whenua, and also to utilise it—to develop it for their economic well-being as well as their cultural well-being. Particularly, the most important part of that is that it is about their identity. It is about their identity.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I say that we really do look forward to considering the settlement and this bill in a lot more detail, and to actually assisting as the kaitiaki to help this bill through on its journey through to the Royal assent. Should the election results and consequent appointments permit, I look forward to welcoming the rakatira of Ngāti Tamaoho and all who would submit on this bill when they appear before the Māori Affairs Committee, and I look forward to seeing the passing of this bill and the completion of the settlement process for Ngāti Tamaoho.

Finally, I want to say to them—because I know there will be a lot of them actually watching this in cyberspace or on television—that it is indeed with great honour that all of us here today, particularly those who are members of the Māori Affairs Committee, really do tautoko this bill, and also wish Ngāti Tamaoho well on the journey through to Royal assent after the third reading. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Te Māngai o Te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa! Ko Maungaroa te maunga, ko Waikato te awa, ko Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa te moana, ko Tainui te waka, ko Mangatangi, ko Whatawhaka, ko Ngā Hau e Whā ngā marae.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, the authorities, languages, and esteemed ones of a hundredfold and to us all. Maungaroa is the mountain, Waikato is the river, Te Mānukanuka o Hoturoa is the sea, Tainui is the canoe, Mangatangi, Whatawhaka, and Ngā Hau e Whā are indeed the marae.]

I am acknowledging that we are here today specifically for the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge all those whānau from Ngāti Tamaoho who have contributed to bringing this piece of legislation to the House.

I want to begin by first quoting some of our Wai cases—these are our Treaty of Waitangi cases. The first one is Wai 1126. It was brought by Ted Ngātaki, and it was the Ngāti Tamaoho lands and resources claim. I note also Wai 1992, brought by Piriwhāriki Tahapeehi. I also note that there are related Wai claims, which we should acknowledge: Wai 2039, brought by Ben Katipa, which acknowledged the overlapping interests between Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Paoa; Wai 2568, brought on behalf of the Minhinnick whānau, which, again, acknowledges the relationship between Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata; and also Wai 898, which was Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry.

I want to acknowledge, actually, that inquiry and a report by Dr Vincent O’Malley, who has over the last couple of years been talking about the Great South Road. I went to a kōrero about the Great South Road. The Great South Road was built under the administration of Governor George Grey, who arrived in New Zealand on 26 September 1861. One of the first things that he did was begin the construction of the Great South Road, which was actually all about the Waikato land wars. It was between 1863 and 1864 that 14,000 colonial troops marched down the Great South Road—which took out a lot of the whenua that Ngāti Tamaoho had—to go and wage the Waikato Wars.

I want to acknowledge that this process was then initiated in June 2009 by Sir Doug Graham, who presented a framework for negotiation that involved the signing of the agreement in principle on 20 December 2012. Signing on behalf of Ngāti Tamaoho were Dennis Rāniera Kirkwood, Warahi (Wallace) Te Huinga Paki, Ted Ngātaki, and Te Roto Jenkins. That history has led us to where we are today.

Preparing for today was quite interesting for me, because on Monday I had the pleasure to accompany Pānia Wilson, who works with my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. We went to Kereru Park Campus in Papakura. Kereru Park Campus’s tumuaki is George Ihimaera. We had a whakatau, and they were very, very clear about their relationship with the mana whenua, specifically acknowledging that for them Ngāti Tamaoho were their primary mana whenua. That is relevant, because in the acknowledgments in this piece of legislation, in clause 9(13)—I am going to read this out—“The Crown acknowledges that, for too long, Ngāti Tamaoho lived with poorer housing and worse health than many other New Zealanders, and that for too long the education system generally held low expectations for Māori educational achievement. The Crown further acknowledges the segregation and discrimination suffered by Māori students while attending a school in the Ngāti Tamaoho rohe during the 1940s.”

The relevance of my visit to Kereru Park Campus on Monday is that it was about Duffy Books in Homes, and was about the aspirations of the tamariki and of the teachers, the parents, and that community for those tamariki and the mokopuna who are dwelling on the lands of Ngāti Tamaoho. I see it as an amazing opportunity for all of our schools within the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho to learn about the history of Ngāti Tamaoho, which is outlined in this piece of legislation.

It is true that in all Treaty settlements, most of our iwi lost their lands, and that was the same for Ngāti Tamaoho—virtually landless. But, as we debated last night, what that also meant was that Ngāti Tamaoho, to all intents and purposes, did not have a tūrangawaewae. We did not have an ability to stand on our own lands as the kaitiaki of those lands, and from that we were not able to develop housing for ourselves. Being landless, to Māori, actually means that we did not have an ability to have a secure base from which we were then able to reap the benefits of the environment that we were living within.

There is a lot of history contained in this specific Treaty settlement that I hope will be passed down to future generations to come. I must say that having attended the lecture about the Great South Road, I am hoping that all that history will be told. That is the relevance of these Treaty settlements to our curriculum and to our commitment to ensuring that all of us, through primary school, through intermediate, and through high school, understand what happened on the whenua that we all live on today. We need to acknowledge—which is what this bill does—and, in some ways, to celebrate the resilience of our whānau, hapū, and iwi.

One of the interesting things I was pointing out to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta is that in 2012, when the agreement in principle was ratified by 98.69 percent of the beneficiaries, at that time there were 400 members; today, in 2017, Ngāti Tamaoho has 2,710 registered members. What this process has enabled to happen, which should be highlighted, is that people are becoming more and more aware of who they are—their whakapapa—through this process. They are becoming eligible to be registered beneficiaries for our hapū and iwi. It is through that process, I believe, that we will ensure that the next generation of our tamariki, our mokopuna, and the beneficiaries of this specific settlement for Ngāti Tamaoho will know who they are and know about the history, and that we all get over it and start focusing on the future—start focusing on what this Treaty settlement means to our hapū and our iwi.

I too want to acknowledge what Minister Finlayson said about the generosity of our hapū and iwi in these settlements. In no way are they getting what they deserve in terms of a compensation package that will address what they lost through the loss of their lands. I am sure colleagues across the House will know the value of those lands, and if we were to estimate what the compensation would be today, there is no way we would be able to make these settlements happen. It is through goodwill and generosity, and is about the focus on the future from our iwi leaders, that we are able to move on. We must never forget that, but we should also, I guess, celebrate the fact that this enables us as a country to have our truth and reconciliation process, and to move on and to look at the relationships that different organisations want to have with Ngāti Tamaoho moving forward. The kura actually does—Kereru Park. Hopefully, all the schools within the rohe where Ngāti Tamaoho is mana whenua will want to have a relationship with them too. That is the potential, I believe, of this piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking on this bill, the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I am the local MP covering much of the area that is within the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho—particularly the area that surrounds the Manukau Harbour, Āwhitu, Franklin, and the Hunua Ranges—so I do feel a certain affinity to this bill, what is going on, and what it is seeking to achieve.

I also want to acknowledge, as other speakers have before me, the recent passing of Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick, who was a proud and lovely woman from Ngāti Te Ata. As rangatira whaea, she was a wonderful leader of that iwi and one of the passionate people in terms of strong advocacy in seeking redress, particularly in the Waiuku, Āwhitu, and Manukau areas.

This bill represents the 84th settlement that has taken place with iwi, but I always find it rather devastating reading the history of what has gone on with the iwi settlements. I think, as Louisa Wall just quite rightly stated, one of the things about these settlements is the great understanding of what has gone on in the past, and the ability to understand that and the need to acknowledge that. The financial settlement is a small component of it, but I think the ability to move forward is very important.

I also want to acknowledge the negotiation team, and particularly my friend Dennis Kirkwood, who, in fact, lives just down the road from me. Part of the settlement and financial redress actually includes his school, Te Hihi School, which is at the end of my road and is where three of my boys went to. So I am particularly glad to hear that this bill is proceeding. I strongly support it, and I look forward to seeing it come to fruition. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Ngā mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki ōku hoa mahi o tēnei Whare Pāremata, tēnā tātou katoa. Ka huri ki Ngāti Tamaoho i tēnei rā whakahirahira, tēnā koutou.

[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to my work colleagues of this House throughout, salutations to us all. I turn to Ngāti Tamaoho on this highly important day, greetings to you collectively.]

It is an incredible honour, as always, to speak on the Treaty settlement bills—in this case, the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. As our representative on the Māori Affairs Committee, it is always an honour to go through these Treaty settlement processes, in terms of learning what has happened to our people around the motu. In this, the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill, I want to focus particularly on what has happened to Ngāti Tamaoho—how the Crown, the community, and society has responded and reacted to Ngāti Tamaoho, and what that means for Ngāti Tamaoho and the wider implications on Te Iwi Māori today.

As always, the Green Party understands that treaties, as Moana Jackson says, are to be honoured and not settled, and that the relationship is an ongoing process seeking justice. This is about seeking honour and peace, and that we cannot begin to do that until we truly rectify what has happened to these people. We understand that Treaty settlements rectify only a small part of what has happened.

There is so much in this history of what has happened to Ngāti Tamaoho, and I am standing particularly proudly as a long-time resident of South Auckland, and a long-time resident of South Auckland who has often visited the different territories of Auckland that Ngāti Tamaoho have mana whenua over, alongside the other Tāmaki iwi collective. What I will support, alongside my colleague Catherine Delahunty, through all of these Treaty settlements, is the need to review the whole, entire process. I am picking up particularly on how Ngāti Pūkenga highlighted the right of first refusal and how it is actually not a right of first refusal in the legislation. I am wondering how that pertains to every single Treaty settlement, including all of the ones before us and Ngāti Tamaoho.

I will start now on the history, and give my gratitude for and understanding of Ngāti Tamaoho being at the front line of the invasion into the Waikato rohe, what they have come to bear, and how they were responded to by being at that front line of active resistance into their rohe. I want to acknowledge Minister Finlayson for putting into the history books the historical account that reignites the story of that invasion and puts the resistance by Ngāti Tamaoho into our Crown records. It is always something that I reflect on when we go through these historical accounts. I wish our country, I wish every single tamaiti in school, and I wish our adults and our communities had a deep understanding of what has happened and how that has shaped our Māori communities today.

There are so many important points in the historical summary. I guess I will reiterate that after the Waikato Wars, the Crown considered the majority of Ngāti Tamaoho ineligible for compensation. The Crown made small land grants and payments to one loyal Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira—

Catherine Delahunty: Ha! “Loyal”.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —“loyal”—and set aside three reserves from a Crown purchase for the few Ngāti Tamaoho people whom the Crown considered had not been in rebellion. So all of that and many other actions of the Crown led down to the fact that by 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho were virtually landless.

I do just want to make a quick contribution about what being landless actually means for us today. Many of us do not have the biggest understanding of whether we are even owners of land. We actually do not know what is happening with the land that we may have whakapapa connection to. That notion of being virtually landless has certainly happened to Ngāti Tamaoho, and the impacts are generational and profound, and they manifest themselves today in terms of our wealth—our wealth as iwi Māori, our wealth, our cultural wealth, our whakapapa wealth, and our ability to stand on our tūrangawaewae with pride and connection.

So I really want to focus on the notion of Ngāti Tamaoho being virtually landless by 1900. This is in contrast with some of those lands that they have mana whenua responsibilities over. I love learning in these historical accounts about what has happened, and it is also saddening. But I was really interested in the fact that after Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed in 1840, Ngāti Tamaoho continued to seek new economic opportunities by selling land to the Crown, and that Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira also sold land in Remuera directly to Pākehā. It was part of the Crown temporarily waiving the pre-emption clauses. But with those pre-emption sales, those understandings of those pre-emption - waiver sales, the Crown was supposed to ensure that one-tenth of those pre-emption - waiver sales would be retained for public purposes. That was the understanding and the expectation from iwi and from Ngāti Tamaoho.

I raise that specifically in reference to the land in Remuera and all around Auckland, the heart of so much vibrancy and the contributions from Auckland to the rest of the country that this House certainly upholds and refers to all the time—the importance of Auckland, its location, and the transactions that go through it and go from it and come into it. We know that in this House. It is incredibly interesting for me to learn, alongside all the other Tāmaki-makau-rau iwi, about the transactions and the mana whenua responsibilities that Ngāti Tamaoho have.

It does not always align for Māori. Being in Auckland, as a bustling, vibrant, contributing part of our country, Māori have not seen the benefits of that necessarily, and not collectively. We know this in terms of housing, imprisonment, education, health, and employment. Yet iwi like Ngāti Tamaoho and other Tāmaki iwi have so generously fought with dignity and honour to uphold that responsibility, without receiving the collective benefits. So as an Auckland resident, and a South Auckland resident, I did want to particularly focus on that aspect of this settlement—the contribution that Ngāti Tamaoho have made and the lack of benefits that Ngāti Tamaoho have seen over generations.

I want to end my contribution by picking up on the incredible acknowledgments that we must make in this House to Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick, because she also received that award on the very same day as my father. I was very honoured to be there for her when she received that award for her work in bringing kaitiaki into the thinking of conservation and the effect it has had on our other collective iwi claims and our work on kaitiaki. In particular to Ngāti Tamaoho as well, because of the wetlands that Ngāti Tamaoho are connected to and the fact that across the country—I think it is 90 percent. We have lost 90 percent of our wetlands, and Ngāti Tamaoho would have been able to make an incredible difference if they had exercised that very kaitiaki responsibility that they lost.

So, again, it is an honour and a privilege to be learning about the history and the contribution that Ngāti Tamaoho have made, and the responses that they face. I hope we all continue to review this process of seeking real justice and peace. Settlements are to be honoured. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Tamaoho, koutou i tae mai nei i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei, koutou e noho tonu ana i te wā kāinga ki te are taringa mai, mātakitaki mai i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te pire i roto i Te Whare Raiona i te rā nei.

Ka hoki mahara ki ētahi o ngā hunga i rārangitia e Te Minita, me ētahi atu o ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au, nā, ko Toko Pompey tēnā, ā, ko Mere Taka, ko Ngāneko Minhinnick. Ka nui taku mihi ki a rātou nā te mea i te wā e ora ana, nā rātou i tū kaha ana ki te āwhina, ki te whāngai hoki i a au i te wā i tīmata ai au hei kaimahi mō Te Tari Māori i roto i taua rohe. Nā reira, ko rātou ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations also to you, the descendants of Ngāti Tamaoho, you who have arrived here amongst us on this day, you who remained back at home to listen and to watch the contributions relating to the bill in the lion’s den today.

The mind returns to some of those listed by the Minister and other speakers who got up before me: that Toko Pompey, Mere Taka, and Ngāneko Minhinnick there. My appreciation to them is huge because when they were alive they were resolute in helping and nourishing me when I started as an employee for Māori Affairs in that region. Therefore, they, the dead, to themselves and we, the living, to ourselves; salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively.]

It is my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to contribute to this, the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I say “pleasure” because in naming Mr Pompey, Mere Taka, and Ngāneko Minhinnick, I say that they were three people who offered help and, in fact, looked after me when I started working in the South Auckland area, and all of them epitomised what manaakitanga is all about. I am not quite sure whether, in fact, their manaakitanga was as a result of them understanding the whakapapa between ngā uri o Hineamaru ki a rātou, ngā uri o Rongo-patu-taonga, ēngari kia ahatia [the descendants of Hineamaru to them and to those of Rongo-patu-taonga, but what can be done about it]?

I will always remember those people, particularly Ngāneko and Mere Taka, because they certainly epitomised how people should treat one another. I hope that what they exercised in those days—I have retained some of that learning—reflects in my attitude to other people of that generation.

From my reading the background of this claim—the way the Crown treated what could be regarded as friendly natives—I just want to say that Ngāti Tamaoho had sold part of their land interests in order to accommodate the new settlers to the area and provide a platform for commercial enterprise so that they could benefit their people. However, the actions of the Crown, as is recorded, shows that they were certainly—I should not say “misguided”, but their trust in dealing with the Crown was certainly misguided in that regard.

I want to just quote a certain paragraph from some written notes that I have here. This is the quote: “By 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho were virtually landless. Many experienced severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions. Māori children experienced discrimination and segregation at a state-run school in Pukekohe.” Can I say that that is probably the beginning of a dark part of our history for that area, because up to the 1950s and 1960s, there was this activity still going on. It was not amongst the schoolchildren in the way that it is described here, but I know that within the township of Pukekohe itself, a lot of my relatives who had migrated from the North to work in the market gardens experienced the discrimination and the segregation that is talked about here. I think that the fact that while it is not recorded in terms of the 1950s or the 1960s, it is certainly a reminder of that dark time in our history as a nation, particularly when it was only 40 or 50 years ago. To have that sort of thing—and some would say that it is still happening. However, in terms of Ngāti Tamaoho, this is certainly acknowledged in their settlement bill, and the Crown has, quite rightly, extended its apologies for that.

I also want to say that this is about seeking honour and peace, as one of my colleagues has already mentioned. While Ngāti Tamaoho might seek honour and peace, we ought to recognise that this claim will not be fully settled, nor will they be fully compensated. Given the number of settlements that have passed through and the records of those settlements, we have come to appreciate that we could never fully compensate the claimants for their losses, but it is very interesting to note, though, the people of Ngāti Tamaoho and the extent of their area of claim. I can understand the reference that Waikato often make about Tāmaki ki runga [up above], and probably the people of Remuera would be very surprised to know that we have an iwi of 2,700 people who can claim, so to speak, Remuera as being part of their tribal area. I just wonder how many of them are actually living in Remuera. A lot of them are probably providing services to the suburb, but again I digress.

I look forward to this bill being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. I look forward to submissions. I hope that many people who have an interest in this bill and who may have some concerns about the terms of the settlement will make a submission, so that we can actually hear their concerns and we can have it on the record as to what those concerns might be. But, in conclusion, I want to commend this bill to the House and I look forward to discussing it further in the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ā, e Ngāti Tamaoho tēnei ahau e tū ake hei mihi ki a koutou, kua tae mai tō koutou pire ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare nei. Kua rongo ai mātou mai i Te Minita, kua whā tau kua pāhore mai i te hainatanga o te “agreement in principle”, ā, kua roa koutou e tatari ana kia tae mai ki tēnei rangi. Nā reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou Ngāti Tamaoho. Kei te huri ngā whakaaro hoki ki tērā o ngā kahurangi, a Nāneko Minhinnick kua pahore atu ki tua o te ārai. Ko ia nei tētahi o ngā kaihāpai o tēnei kaupapa, nā reira e Te Whaea, e moe, e moe e moe. Nā, ko rātou ki a rātou te hunga wairua, ka hoki mai ki a tātou ngā kanohi ora, tēnā rā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. And so to you, Ngāti Tamaoho, I rise to acknowledge you. Your bill has arrived before this House. We have heard from the Minister that 4 years have passed since the signing of “the agreement in principle”, and you have waited a long time for this day to arrive. Therefore, I acknowledge you profusely, Ngāti Tamaoho. Thoughts are turning as well to that one of the highly ranked persons, Nāneko Minhinnick, who has passed beyond the veil. She was indeed one of the supporters of this proposal, and so to you, esteemed mother figure, sleep, rest, slumber. Now then, they, the spiritual ones, to themselves; I come back to us, the living. Salutations to us.]

If one is to drive along the Southern Motorway heading from Auckland through to the Waikato, you will pass through areas such as Karaka, where the horses are raised, and that is pretty fine, fertile land. You get to the Bombay Hills and the site where St Stephen’s School used to be. It is situated on a very fine piece of property—an ideal place, actually, for a school. It is a pity that the buildings at St Stephen’s are in the state they are in now. But then, if you go over the brow of the hill, you get to where the market gardens are, and those market gardens are quite substantial blocks of land that create much employment for New Zealanders. They produce vegetables.

Peeni Henare: Food basket.

KELVIN DAVIS: It is a food basket. It generates a lot of money and business, but, sadly, the area that I have tried to describe was part of Ngāti Tamaoho’s landholdings in years gone by. I can almost guarantee that next to none of that land will be in Ngāti Tamaoho’s possession these days, and that is a direct result of the actions of the Crown. We have heard how Ngāti Tamaoho was treated by the Crown all those years ago, and it is set out in the acknowledgments in this bill.

In the mid-1850s, Ngāti Tamaoho were, in fact, very friendly to the Crown. They tried to work cooperatively with the Crown. They tried to establish economic opportunities. They participated in land transactions that actually contributed to much of the site of where Auckland City is now.

The Crown was pretty hopeless—I guess that is the easy way of saying it—in terms of making sure that the interests of Ngāti Tamaoho and the land of that area were looked after. Settlers came in and, basically, plonked themselves there, and nothing was done about it. Ngāti Tamaoho sort of woke up one day and said “My gosh! What are these people doing settling here? We didn’t agree to them settling on this land.”, but nothing was done. Certainly, their customary interests in the land were not looked after. The streams were degraded, the land was cleared, surplus land that was taken from Ngāti Tamaoho in pre-Treaty purchases was not returned to Ngāti Tamaoho, and, basically—as our colleague Pita Paraone from New Zealand First said—by 1900, Ngāti Tamaoho were left landless.

As Peeni Henare said earlier in the day, it is not just about the loss of land; it is about the loss of mana and it is about the loss of wairua. For many people it may be hard to understand the connection that land has to Māori and to Māoridom and how the loss of land leads to a loss of all those other aspects of what it means to be Māori, and this has been a direct result of the actions, or lack of actions, of the Crown.

The Crown failed to set aside a tenth of the land for Ngāti Tamaoho. Ngāti Tamaoho expected to benefit from land sales, they expected to have schools developed, and they expected to have medical care, and none of this happened. In fact, Ngāti Tamaoho were expected to swear allegiance to the Crown. They were not given any opportunity to actually discuss what the oath of allegiance would mean for them, and when they did not actually swear that oath of allegiance in a timely manner, they were considered to be rebels. They had their kāinga—their homes—destroyed. Maybe that is the start of the homelessness situation and the lack of housing we have in New Zealand, because the Crown actually just came in and wiped out people’s living places.

If we can equate that to a modern context, maybe it is sort of like David Seymour asking the people of the Epsom electorate to swear allegiance to him, and when they do not he goes in and burns downs Parnell. If that happened these days, there would be one heck of an uproar. There would be lawsuits everywhere. But, of course, back in those days, Ngāti Tamaoho did not have the benefit of fancy lawyers to make a stand for them. They were expected to swear allegiance to an entity they did not quite understand, probably in a language that was their second language, and, basically, it left them in the situation they are in now, where we have had to come to the House to settle it.

As we keep saying in these settlement bills, the compensation that is coming to Ngāti Tamaoho will be just a fraction—probably less than 1 percent—

Louisa Wall: Way less.

KELVIN DAVIS: —less than, probably, a tenth of 1 percent—of the value of everything that they have lost. So it is important that we stand in the House—and it is great to see all the parties standing up to speak to this bill—because we do value it highly.

It is sad to see, though, that the Māori Party has decided not to take the opportunity to take a call on this bill. We figured that the Māori Party would be the one party—oh sorry, no. It would be one of the parties that you would expect to stand every time to speak on every Treaty settlement bill, like the Labour Party certainly does. To know that members of the Māori Party have chosen not to take up this opportunity while they are on the precinct—that they have got more important work for themselves to do—is really bitterly disappointing. As we say in Māori, it is whakaiti—it is belittling this bill, it is belittling Ngāti Tamaoho, and it is a very sad state of affairs from the Māori Party.

So I will leave things there. I look forward to following the progress of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill through the Māori Affairs Committee. It is important that we do get to the end of these Treaty settlements for the benefit not just of Māoridom but of all New Zealand. Tēnā koutou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The House adjourned at 12.45 p.m. (Thursday)