Wednesday, 9 August 2017

WEDNESDAY, 9 AUGUST 2017

WEDNESDAY, 9 AUGUST 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

World’s Indigenous Peoples—International Day

KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to move without notice or debate a motion on the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that notice without debate. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That this House note that today is the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples—a day that celebrates the world’s 370 million indigenous people—and that the House affirm its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2017—Infrastructure Programme

1. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making on the $32.5 billion infrastructure programme over the next 4 years identified in Budget 2017?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Government is making good progress with what is the largest infrastructure plan New Zealand has been involved in. For example, we are very busy investing in a range of transport projects. Yesterday KiwiRail rejoined the Main North Line between Christchurch and Picton. We are also currently working on the highway there. In Auckland we are working on the Southern Motorway corridor, which is a 50 percent expansion. The Waterview tunnel also opened recently, delivering massive time savings to Aucklanders travelling between the west and south of Auckland and also between the airport and the city. Just last week, the Government officially opened in Wellington the $43 million Haywards Interchange project, which delivers significant benefits to Hutt Valley motorists by smoothing traffic flow and reducing accident risk.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How does Budget 2017’s transport investment benefit Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is making a significant number of transport investments in and around Auckland, across all modes. These include the East-West Link, the new motorway linking the Southwestern Motorway with the Southern Motorway, electrifying the commuter railway line between Papakura and Pukekohe, and our intention to construct the third main line. Of course, there is also the Northern Motorway corridor between Constellation and Albany, and the extension of the busway. The Government, in partnership with Auckland Council, is considering further investments in areas like the Mill Road corridor and the Northwestern Motorway busway as part of a comprehensive plan to unlock land for housing development projects around the city.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How will these investments flow through the construction sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The investment programmes in Auckland and around the country are giving the construction sector the confidence to make many long-term commitments. The independent National Construction Pipeline report released last weekend shows that the building boom we have been experiencing is forecast to continue for at least another 3 or 4 years. That is because Budget 2017 is also funding new programmes like the Housing Infrastructure Fund and Crown Infrastructure Partners, which are able to open up land to build up to 83,000 houses in fast-growing parts of the country. This construction pipeline shows that the Government’s plan to invest in key infrastructure for a growing country is working for New Zealanders.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How is the Government able to deliver on this infrastructure plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government delivers by involving private sector investment and private partners, as well as the Government’s investment. For example, we have a good track record in areas like ultra-fast broadband, which has been supported by around a $2 billion investment from the Government and has been more than matched by co-investments from the private sector. As a result, New Zealand has already moved up the OECD broadband rankings from 26th in the world 5 years ago to 11th last year. Once complete, the ultra-fast broadband will probably put us in a top-five spot in the OECD, and that is a true public-private partnership delivering for New Zealanders.

Māori Development—Wage Gap, Employment Rate, and Ministerial Responsibility

KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When this question was lodged, it was directed to the Minister for Māori Development, whose responsibilities include numerous pieces of legislation and policies that impact upon Māori economic well-being. On this issue in particular, Speaker’s ruling 194/4 says: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold.” The question asks for his view on the wage gap that affects Māori, and it is his view that my constituents and Māori around Aotearoa are interested in, not the view of the Minister to whom the question has been redirected. He has responsibility to this House to give a view on this critical issue for Māori.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the summary of that point of order is that the member is objecting to the transfer. Can I refer the member to two Speakers’ rulings that have guided me in this regard. Speakers’ ruling 167/5 says that Ministers not only have a right to determine who will answer but, in fact, have a duty to pick the Minister who can most responsibly answer. I also refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 168/1, which says that the Government has the right to transfer questions, but if it was doing so in a way to dodge the issue, then the member might have a point. In this case, I think the justification for the transfer is clear to me. The member can proceed to ask his question; if he prefers not to, we will move straight to question No. 3.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect it is well too late to do anything about it in this case, because the transfer has gone ahead and I suspect it will be the Minister of employment answering the question. But the issue comes when there is, for example, a population Minister who represents an advocacy agency, effectively, because almost any question to the Minister for Māori Development will overlap with the responsibilities of another Minister. Therefore, about the only question that we could lodge to the Minister that we could guarantee he would have to answer would be “Does he stand by his statements?” or “Does he have confidence in his department?”, and any indication from us of the topic that we wish to question him on therefore leaves open the possibility for transfer. So I wonder whether at some point you could consider—there are a limited number of ministerial portfolios that would be in this situation, and the Minister for Māori Development is one—whether there is a way that Opposition members can lodge questions to that Minister and be clear that it is going to be that Minister who is answering them, because almost anything else gives rise to a potential transfer.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point, and I did take particular interest and it was my final decision as to whether this question could be transferred. I was conscious of the very point the member is making now. In fact, in my time as Speaker, on two occasions I have refused transfers because I thought they had not got to the point the member was trying to get to with those particular questions, and I suspect those are the only two times that has happened in probably the last 20-odd years in this Parliament. I look at this matter very carefully. I think the way forward is that if the member really wanted to direct it to a particular Minister, he could have done so with a different wording of that question. I advise all members that as they are formulating their thoughts on questions, if they want to seek any advice at all from the Clerk of the House, that is probably their best option.

2. KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he believe it is a sign of success that after nine years of this Government the wage gap between Māori and Pākehā now sits at $213 a week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: No, we are not happy. We will not be happy until there is no gap in wages between Māori and Pākehā, and indeed other groups, as well. That is why the Government is focusing on a range of initiatives to increase training and skills for young Māori, particularly enrolments and graduations in tertiary education, programmes like Grow Kaikohe in Northland as well, for the Māori “neets” in areas like Northland, and a range of programmes that will ensure that this gap continues to close. Tell you what, what we will not be doing is putting a tax on regional—

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

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where a question is transferred, is there some obligation on the Minister to whom it is transferred to be the person who answers the question? The Minister to whom the question was lodged is in the House, but the Minister whom the Government has transferred it to is not in the House, so the case for saying that the Minister to whom it was transferred to is in a better position to answer is significantly weakened.

Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order—

Hon Members: Sit down.

Hon Simon Bridges: No, I will not sit down. Speaking to the point of order, I note that that point—[Interruption]

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

Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order, I say it is ultimately very simple. The Minister for Māori Development does not have responsibility for the wage gap that the member is asking about; the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, and Employment does. That is why it was transferred. Then, who answers if that Minister is away, is entirely for the Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the points raised by both members. This issue I canvassed with the two Speakers’ rulings I referred to earlier. If a decision is made to transfer, then it is the Government’s decision as to whom it transfers that to, and, as I pointed out earlier, I think the Government must accept it has a responsibility to give it to the Minister whom it thinks can best answer the question that has been asked.

Kelvin Davis: Can he confirm that this wage gap represents a 30 percent increase since his Government came into power?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot, and it all depends on how the member counts it. But in terms of the gap, I agree with the member that it is higher than we would like, and the way we deal with that is to focus on ensuring that we have the tertiary education opportunities and success for young Māori so that this gap can be closed over time. It has never been closed before, and I think that is something that we all in this House need to reflect upon. But I can report for the member that the number of Māori, or the proportion of Māori aged 25 to 64 who now have, for example, a Bachelor’s degree or above has increased from 9 percent in 2008 to 17 percent this year, and that is good progress.

Kelvin Davis: Nōna rānei te hē mō te rerekētānga o te pūtea ā-wiki ā Te Pākehā ki tā te pūtea Māori ā-wiki; ki te kore, he aha te take kua hūkukuhia mai tenei pātai i Te Minita Whanaketanga Māori, ki a ia i tēnei rā hai whakanui i Ngā Iwi Taketake o Te Ao?

[Is the fault his for the difference between the Pākehā weekly sum of money and that of the Māori weekly sum of money; if not, what is the reason for this question being shifted from the Minister for Māori Development to him on this day celebrating the indigenous peoples of the world?]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce, if he feels he has heard enough of the translation.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Everybody in this Government takes responsibility for the performance and success of New Zealanders. In the case of tertiary education, skills, and employment, one of the key paths forward to close the income gap between Māori and everybody else is actually through employment and training. That is why it is appropriate that the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment takes a strong interest in the skills achievement of Māori.

Marama Fox: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was actually very interested in the answer from the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order, please.

Marama Fox: Well, the point of order is that the lack of positive interjection from the left has inhibited my ability—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I appreciate the point the member is making. There was significant interjection, but I could still manage to hear the answer.

Kelvin Davis: Does he believe that the huge wage gap between Māori and Pākehā has anything to do with the fact that the number of Māori who are now homeless under his watch sits at 14,000?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government does not agree with that characterisation of the homeless population, which the Opposition keeps running but is not correct. Nevertheless, the key point is the achievement and participation in the economy of Māori of all ages. That is why it is important to lift education levels, and, as I say, I am pleased to report to the member the number of Māori completing a Bachelor’s degree each year has increased 64 percent since 2008. The number of Māori involved in programmes that we have—for example, the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —is increasing. But, again, I think it is really important that a lot of Māori are in regional New Zealand, and what you would not do is actually put on an additional tax to affect them.

Kelvin Davis: He aha te take kei raro i a ia, kua eke te nama o ngā Māori e kore mahi ana mā te 60 paihēneti, ko te pai hēneti Māori, e 11.1 engari, 3.4 pai hēneti noa iho tā Te Pākehā?

[Why is it that under his watch the number of unemployed Māori has climbed by 60 percent, the Māori percentage being 11.1 but the Pākehā percentage being only 3.4?]

Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to repeat the question because the interpretation has not come through on my earpiece.

Kelvin Davis: He aha te take kei raro i a ia, kua eke te nama o ngā Māori e kore mahi ana mā te te 60 paihēneti, ko te paihēneti Māori 11.1 engari, 3.4 pai noa iho tā Te Pākehā?

[Why is it that under his watch the number of unemployed Māori has climbed by 60 percent, the Māori percentage being 11.1 but the Pākehā percentage being only 3.4?]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have to check those figures for the member. Of course, we have had the global financial crisis, which has affected every community and every group. We have been getting improving results for Māori since 2012, but, again, the longer-term solution is increased educational achievement, particularly in the tertiary and trades areas. I suggest the member has a look at those numbers and actually congratulates Māori on achieving those results.

Kelvin Davis: As the Minister for Māori Development is responsible for guiding him and other Ministers on “policies affecting Māori wellbeing”, is it he or the Minister for Māori Development who is failing Māori, given the wage gap is growing, as well as high unemployment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to him earlier, this is a job that the Government is very focused on: lifting achievement and participation of Māori in the New Zealand economy. That is why we are doing the regional growth programmes, that is why we are doing Māori and Pasifika trades training, and that is why we are ensuring that more Māori achieve in tertiary education, including universities. I know the Opposition is blind to that because it hates anything that disproves its thesis, but this Government is focused on achieving for Māori, and delivering higher qualifications is one of the key ways in which that will be achieved.

David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any reports of organisations, such as the Iwi Leaders Forum, endorsing the policy Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not at all surprised that the iwi leaders group would support partnership schools, because they are designed to get better results—for young Māori children, in many cases—in different parts of the country. It is about trying new things and achieving things that this country has never been able to achieve before. But, of course, the Opposition wants to take us back to the bad old days when there was only one person who was allowed to teach people at schools.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Increases, Measurement, and Reduction Targets

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his policies?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our 2015 policy that gave families on benefits with children a $25 a week boost to their incomes, while at the same time requiring them to meet obligations in respect of work. We found that taxpayers are happy to give people help when they are struggling, but they do expect some obligations to be met. We disagree with the Green Party’s policy that people should be paid a benefit with no obligations at all.

James Shaw: Why have New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions risen by 19 percent since his Government took office in 2008?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a good question coming from, I think, the only Green Party in the world with no climate change spokesman this week. New Zealand has in place a comprehensive plan to deal with climate change, at the core of which is the emissions trading system, for which I would give credit to the predecessors of the current Green Party who, in the early 2000s, encouraged the development of exactly that scheme, which is so important to our climate change efforts.

James Shaw: Why have New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions risen by 19 percent since his Government took office in 2008?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The greenhouse gas emissions have risen partly because of the growth of the population and the growth of the economy. We are always trying to find the right balance between achieving the climate change goals we have signed up to in the Paris accord on the one hand, and on the other hand ensuring that we have sustainable communities and a successful economy. As time goes on, we are generating better and better solutions so there is not a trade-off—so that there are actually gains on both sides.

James Shaw: Does he anticipate whether New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions will ever fall?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We anticipate that the greenhouse gas emissions will meet the targets that we have signed up to in the climate change agreement.

James Shaw: Does he agree that there is one measure, and one measure only, of whether a country is succeeding or failing in its fight against climate change, and that that is whether its net greenhouse gas emissions are rising or falling?

Rt Hon Bill English: I do not think it is quite that simple, but we have signed up to some pretty clear-cut targets in the Paris Agreement. We would expect that, over time, New Zealand moves towards and then achieves those targets, particularly as more research occurs and better technology comes to the fore—say, in the transport area. We believe momentum will pick up.

James Shaw: Has he read the recent National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report that predicts that Wellington could be as hot as Sydney by 2090, and that the Wairarapa could be plagued by droughts and wildfires if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that the time for that kind of discussion has really passed. We accept that there are climate change targets that we need to achieve, we have signed up to the global agreement to achieve those, and now it is really a matter of the best tools to make progress and get there.

James Shaw: In reference to his last answer about signing up to climate agreements, does he stand by his actions in 2002 when, in reference to Helen Clark ratifying the latest climate agreement then, he held up a sign saying that “the mad cow shouldn’t have signed”—does he stand by that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is referring to a specific series of protests run by the farming community in respect of something that it referred to as the “fart tax”, I suppose. At the time we certainly had a lot of discussion with the community about that particular measure.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Members will get their chance for supplementary questions shortly.

Women—Employment and Education Rates and Gender Pay Gap

4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Women: What reports has she received about the progress of women in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Women): This Government, of course, absolutely backs women to succeed, and the latest household labour force survey shows that we have one of the highest ever labour force participation rates for women, at 64.5 percent. This puts us fifth-highest, I must say, in the OECD and well above the OECD average of 51.9 percent. The number of unemployed women, of course, is also down to 4.9 percent.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What progress are young women making under the National Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Our young women are in a better position than ever to seize the opportunity that this country has to offer them. We have the lowest rate for young women not in education, employment, or training since we began measuring it in 2004. There are 57 percent fewer young mums on main benefits at the end of 2016, compared with 2009, down from 4,263 to 1,836, and we have seen—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting our Deputy Prime Minister. There is just so much noise on the other side, I simply cannot hear what she is saying.

Mr SPEAKER: I was about to rise to my feet. There are two or three serial offenders to my left who have not, effectively, been quiet throughout question time. I do not want to have to see the end of somebody’s parliamentary career with them having to leave in the last few days of them being here, but if they are going to continue to interject, unreasonably and consistently, then I am afraid that members of the Labour caucus leave me no alternative.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I thought we would be celebrating the successes of young women in this country, and I want to add to this that we have seen the percentage of girls achieving NCEA level 2 increase from 70.5 percent in 2008 to 81.7 percent in 2016.

Grant Robertson: Has the Minister seen any reports of a 37-year-old woman, raised in Morrinsville now living in Point Chevalier, making excellent progress?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I may have noticed that there has been a bit of a change in the last week, but, as I say, you can change the lead singer but if the band is still singing the same old tune, nobody is listening.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is the public sector leading the way on promoting women?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As Minister of State Services as well as Minister for Women, I think it is absolutely outstanding what the public sector is doing and leading by example. We now have the highest ever percentage of women on State sector boards at 45.3 percent. We have 45 percent of the top three tiers of leaders in the Public Service who are women and 12 of our 29 chief executives are women, and we are going to get that to 50 percent. We have also, of course, ensured that 55,000 women in our aged-care sector have got, on average, a more than 20 percent increase in their wages.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true and this Government is doing so much for women, why is it so prejudicial against young women trying to get equal pay in a country where they think that they have got a right to be paid equally?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I find that ironic, coming from the man who wants to hark back to the good old days in the 1970s where women were not even working and—[Interruption]

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No. I am just trying to get some silence so that I can hear the point of order. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of a fair go for young women, could the Minister just answer the question and not try to be a smart alec.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! When I consider the tone of the question that was asked, there was an element of that in the tone of the question that gives a bit of licence to the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I will say is that in 1998 and in the early 2000s when that Minister was part of a Government, the gender pay gap was at 16.3 percent. It is now at 12 percent and we are bringing that down further.

Economic Growth—Wage Growth, Commercial Water User Charge, and Housing Costs

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied that after nearly 9 years of a National Government, that all New Zealanders are getting a fair share of any economic growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The member sort of raises two questions there. The first one is around “any economic growth”, and I am pleased to point out to him that New Zealand’s economy has now grown in 24 of the last 25 quarters. It is forecast to grow a further 3.7 percent this year, and last year it was the fifth fastest growing economy in the OECD. So perhaps he could say: “… getting a fair share of the economic growth?”. In relation to whether New Zealanders are getting their fair share, I draw his attention to the Bryan Perry report, released by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) last month, which shows median incomes after housing costs increasing from 2011 to 2016 by 16 percent in real terms, or 3.2 percent per annum. The lowest decile increased 19.6 percent over this period, while the highest decile increased slightly less at 19.1 percent.

Grant Robertson: Are the 67 percent of wage and salary earners who received a pay rise of less than the rate of inflation over the last year getting their fair share?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It depends on which year the member refers to, because in the last calendar year our inflation was zero, so it is hard to argue that people got a wage rise less than zero. But the member makes a good point in terms of always wanting to help New Zealanders get ahead. That is why the Government is putting in place the $2 billion a year Family Incomes Package, which through wage threshold changes, Working for Families, and the accommodation supplement will mean that the average family, something like 1.37 million New Zealand families, will get around $26 a week, and that is actually helping them with their incomes, and I know that the member is opposed to it.

Grant Robertson: Is it a fair share for all New Zealanders when the cost of food, school donations, medical costs, dental costs, and housing costs all increased faster than wages did over the last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I think the member is concerned for New Zealanders and that is good, but then you would wonder why he would then say that you would want to have a regional fuel tax, or why you would want to have a water tax, which would flow through into milk prices. If you are genuinely concerned about New Zealanders’ cost of living, you would not want to add extra taxes that would put up the costs of goods that they buy every week. That is the bit I do not understand. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, will he rule out introducing a royalty on any commercial users of water?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government will not be introducing a water tax—a water tax that these people opposite are actually talking about doing. People do sometimes pay charges now, but we will not be introducing a water tax across catchments around New Zealand—and, worse than that, telling people that we cannot tell you the rate until after a general election, because we are too scared to. [Interruption]

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can he confirm—

Hon Simon Bridges: He hasn’t got a clue.

Grant Robertson: Shh, Simon! Shh! You will be interested.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to start his question again, without the interjections from Mr Bennett.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can he confirm that his Government asked the technical advisory panel to consider a royalty on a commercial user of water, and is that not just kicking the can down the road until after the election?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, in terms of that, it is very clear—and I think the Prime Minister has said so today, and I have said so—that we will not be introducing a water tax on a catchment-by-catchment basis across New Zealand. And the people who are talking about introducing a water tax should tell everybody what level of water tax they are actually planning on introducing. They wrote the policy 3 years ago; they surely should have an answer by now. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Grant Robertson: Ah, it is all good. Are people getting a fair share when the latest MSD data, otherwise known as the Perry report, shows that the percentage of people living in housing stress—i.e., where they spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs—is the highest it has been since records began 30 years ago?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot confirm that for the member. I am always suspicious of his numbers. But can I say this—again, in relation to the matter—the member says he is concerned about these things; so is the Government. That is why we are increasing the accommodation supplement for people with high housing costs as part of the Family Incomes Package, that is why we are increasing Working for Families, and that is why we are shifting the tax thresholds—all things that will help reduce the housing costs as a proportion of people’s incomes, but the Opposition oppose it.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that tables C.5 and C.3 of the 2017 MSD Perry report, which he did not seem to be aware of before, show that the number of people living in housing stress is the highest it has been since records began, and how is that a sign of success for a Government that has been in for 9 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have two things for the member. Firstly, as soon as we could—as soon as we could—as soon as we had the books back into surplus, we introduced the first increase in real terms of benefits in 40 years, and, of course, that is not in the Perry report. The second thing is we have introduced the changes, the Family Incomes Package, in Budget 2017—again, not in the Perry report—which will help those people. Most importantly, we do not keep loading on extra taxes that put up the costs of the food and the petrol and all those things that people need. The member, of course, pretends he is concerned, but he does the exact opposite of anybody who would be concerned.

Horticulture Sector—Outlook, Growth Targets, and Commercial Water User Charge

6. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the “bright” outlook for the horticulture sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Last week I spoke at the Pipfruit New Zealand conference, where New Zealand was named as the world’s most competitive apple performer for the third consecutive year. The apple industry continues to go from strength to strength, and it is set to achieve its goal of earning $1 billion in export returns by 2022. Zespri also released its annual review, showing the largest ever kiwifruit crop and record returns back to growers—up 21 percent from last year. Another report shows that kiwifruit’s contribution to New Zealand’s GDP is set to increase to over $6 billion by 2030, creating an additional 29,000 New Zealand jobs—a very bright outlook indeed.

Todd Muller: What potential challenges does our horticultural sector face in achieving its aspirational growth targets?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Like many of our primary sectors, horticulture depends on a very secure and sustainable supply of water. A charge on water would mean the price of fruit and vegetables would rise and affect our international competitiveness in 80 world markets. I note that Horticulture New Zealand has just issued a press release entitled “… let’s not do this”. This PR talks about how the policy that Labour has announced will make food more expensive—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is no responsibility from the Minister for a Labour Party policy announcement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Yes, I will come to the member in a minute; I just need substantially less interjection from both my left and, on this occasion particularly, my right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the outlook for horticulture is so bright, how come, as of just the other day, the kiwifruit industry has taken the Government to court seeking $400 million compensation for the absolute botch-up leading to Psa, and what on earth is the local member doing about it?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I am not going to comment on a case that is in front of the courts, but what I can say is that if the member takes some time and reads the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI’s) response, he should be satisfied with the response from MPI’s officials.

Todd Barclay—Employment Dispute Settlement and Prime Ministerial Involvement

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Todd Barclay matter; if so, how does he credibly do that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I think the member may know how I am going to answer this question. Yes; because I said them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he use taxpayer resources to undermine the Clutha-Southland MP Todd Barclay’s operations as that electorate’s MP?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility—the Right Honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he subject to any confidentiality agreement about what he can say about the Todd Barclay matter, including hundreds of related texts from a phone paid for by the taxpayer?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility—the Right Honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I was not a party to the settlement of this employment dispute, so I am not bound by the confidentiality of it but the people involved with it are.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: [Interruption] Oh, no, we have got him—just be patient. Why does he claim not to have any knowledge about the employment settlement agreement involving Glenys Dickson and repetitively deny that he had any involvement in its preparation, when these denials are, evidentially, plain false?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility—the Right Honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is quite right, I have no ministerial responsibility for it. All the relevant material has been in the public for some months, and the member seems to have found some of it lately. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm that the deployment of ministerial limos for him when in Clutha-Southland in 2015 involved proper ministerial reasons, and not other reasons?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unfortunately, I do not get to Southland as much as I would like, but it is still more often than the member finds time to go to Northland.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seeing as you have predicated every answer by saying “where there is any prime ministerial responsibility”—since you have predicated every answer with that warning, why do you allow him to get away with that false lie?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member would like—[Interruption] Order! If the member would like to look at Hansard afterwards, he will see that I did not start every answer with that particular comment, and on the last one I did not. But I am unable to help the Minister, because I look at the generality of the first question asked, the primary question, to get into the detail the member is wanting in the supplementary question. I consider that the question has been addressed. Supplementary question—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, well, here is the real question for you, sunshine.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I do acknowledge he is responding to interjections that are not helpful. Would the member now proceed with his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is proven that contrary to his denials he had substantial knowledge of the confidential agreement involving Glenys Dickson and was involved in its preparation as to terms and conditions, contrary to what he has been telling the media and Parliament, then, in the event of such proof, what will he do to hold himself accountable?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the statements I have made about it are correct, and the relevant material has been in the public arena for some time. I can assure the member I was no part of the agreement.

Transport, Auckland—Rail to Airport, Funding, and Government Priorities

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: Why is the Government prepared to wait up to 30 years before funding light rail to Auckland Airport?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government has never said that. The Government’s position has been, and is, clear and that is building and moving from bus to light rail, as demand requires. The Government’s focus is on protecting the dedicated corridor and moving towards construction of the corridor, which will be completed within 10 years.

Phil Twyford: Does he think that waiting 30 years for light rail in our biggest city is, to coin a phrase, ambitious for New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think our plan and the work we are doing with the council is truly ambitious for Auckland. It involves projects in the north, the south, the east, and the west—where the growth is happening—as opposed to relying on one silver bullet and putting everything into that, when actually Waterview has halved the time on that trip. While we know that a tram plan may, over time, have merit, it would take some 50 minutes—well over double what Waterview is taking, and will continue to take for some time to come.

Phil Twyford: Why, when congestion is costing the city $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity, is he holding back the city’s growth in prosperity by refusing to back light rail to the airport now, just like Steven Joyce did with the City Rail Link?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The truth is that the congestion is why we have got a plan of unprecedented ambition all over Auckland. It is why the East-West Link is so important, because, unlike the Labour Party, we do not live in some imaginary world where there is not freight. We do not think that mattresses, plasma TVs, and all these other things turn up to shops and people’s homes by themselves.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Infrastructure New Zealand, which said that Labour’s commitment to solving Auckland’s long-term transport funding challenge is “a big step forward”, and the chamber of commerce, which said that Labour’s speed of action to accelerate delivery of transport solutions is exactly what Auckland needs?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think what it actually said was that the plan was interesting. But what it also made quite clear was that it absolutely disagrees with a plan that would increase congestion dramatically, and that involves cancelling the East-West Link. I am also not sure what they think about the dramatic rise in regional fuel taxes that would be required, when we know that the tram plan requires over $100 million a kilometre.

Phil Twyford: How would he fund the $6 billion gap in the Auckland transport plan’s first decade if he is in Government after the next election? Mr Speaker, I know that is a hypothetical question, but I hope you will allow it.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, the same as we have already funded a plan of unprecedented ambition in Auckland and New Zealand. We have done it before; we will do it again. We have got a lot of capital that we have made clear through Budget 2017, and the National Land Transport Fund also has some headroom. What we will not be doing is adding new taxes. It will be much more than 10c, actually, and really hitting Aucklanders in the hip pocket.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether the real reason that he is being so slow to address the needs of the Auckland community where rail is concerned is that he has done nothing about Gisborne and Northland, Manawatū to Wairarapa, and the North Canterbury to Christchurch line?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, the member knows that is a load of old cobblers. He asks me written questions nearly every day and I make clear the projects happening all over New Zealand—the East Coast and the north; actually, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that is a big part of the reason why our regions, contrary to all the stuff he says, are booming right now.

Beneficiaries—Reduction in Numbers and Reports

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received regarding reductions in the number of people receiving a benefit?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): The latest Ministry of Social Development quarterly benefit data shows that there are over 17,000 fewer people on a main benefit than 3 years ago. The proportion of the working-age population receiving a benefit is now at the lowest it has been in a June quarter since 1997, which also happened to be under a National Government. This Government’s strong and stable economic management has seen unemployment drop to pre - global financial crisis levels of 4.8 percent, and 248,000 more people have been employed over the last 3 years.

Dr Shane Reti: What groups have had particular success moving off benefits and into employment?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The number of people receiving sole parent support continues to reduce at levels above all forecasts and predictions. They are a terrific group of people determined to get ahead. In the last 3 years, the number of people on sole parent support has reduced by 18 percent. Even more encouraging, amongst 18- to 24-year-olds, the reduction is a massive 35.6 percent over the 3 years—a 35.6 percent reduction. Honestly, we all know it is tough to be a parent on a benefit, but their desire for a better life for their family means we now have over 61,000 fewer children growing up in a benefit-dependent home.

Dr Shane Reti: What changes have there been in benefit numbers in the Northland region?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: More good news. As seen in the latest household labour force survey released last week, the unemployment rate has dropped significantly in Northland by 3.4 percent in the last year. We are also seeing this reflected in the benefit statistics for the region, which show a 5.1 percent reduction in the number of job seeker work-ready recipients in the last year in Northland. But we are not resting on these results. We know there is much more to do. That is why last month, alongside the Prime Minister and other Ministers, we announced a $50 million youth employment pathways programme to support young people who are not in employment, education, or training

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It shows you what I’ve done in 2 years flat.

Tracey Martin: The Winston Peters effect.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Listen, you might learn something for your people. This follows on from the success of grow KAIKOHE and now the Taitamariki 500 to get Northland youth currently on a benefit on the pathway to sustainable long-term employment, which is more than you have ever done, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That Minister cannot break the Standing Orders and address a person in the way she did. I know she is not the brightest cog in the wheel, but she cannot get away with that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member on this occasion is right. The last part of the answer was unnecessary to the order of this House.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes and Government Measures to Address

10. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Can he confirm that yesterday’s announcement of grants to clean up rivers and lakes was actually first promised in 2014 and it’s taken him three years to do it?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Associate Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: No. Yesterday’s announcement builds on a $360 million commitment that is in place, and this is just the next phase of bringing that total to over $400 million. During the previous Government, supported by the Greens, just $29 million was spent, and the record is therefore clear on who takes fresh water seriously.

Catherine Delahunty: How does yesterday’s announcement deal with nitrates from intensive dairying, given the fact that the elephant in the room is actually a cow?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yesterday’s announced funding for freshwater improvement projects means that over 100 rivers and lakes across New Zealand are to receive grants of up to $44 million from the Government to improve water quality. There is no elephant in those lakes and rivers.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question about nitrates—how does it deal with nitrates—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member then added something that gave a bit more licence to the Minister when he answered the question; the Minister chose to use it.

Catherine Delahunty: What percentage of projects announced yesterday deal with improving water quality in urban waterways?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That is a good question, because urban waterways are just as important in terms of improving water quality as rural waterways. If the member wishes to put down in writing a specific question on that matter, the Minister will answer in detail.

Andrew Bayly: Has the Minister read any reports on the impact of a 10c per litre charge on all commercial water users to fund clean-ups, and how much revenue would that generate? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is in order; it can be answered.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes, a 10c per litre charge on all commercial users was proposed in October 2015, and if it had been applied it would have cost the New Zealand economy $600 billion, or three times New Zealand’s total gross domestic product. In practice, such a tax would collapse our economy. The proposal came from Labour’s Stuart Nash.

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This charge was levelled by a previous Minister. I challenged him to come up with the evidence, and he could not and he has not. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise, or provide evidence of such.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, from memory this has been dealt with by way of personal explanation by Mr Nash previously, where he has denied making such a suggestion. Mr Speaker, I think you are aware that once a member has done that—if the member is wrong it is a breach of privilege and that is very serious, but no member can bring that allegation up again.

Mr SPEAKER: I was unaware that it had been the subject of a personal explanation from Mr Nash. I may not have been in the House at that time. I think the best way forward is that I will require the Minister to stand and withdraw the final part of his answer.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I withdraw the final part of my answer.

Catherine Delahunty: Why is the Government spending just $44 million on freshwater improvement projects, and $400 million on irrigation projects that will not help the environment of our waterways?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, the $44 million announced yesterday was just part of a $400 million package, $360 million of which has already been allocated.

Christchurch Schools Rebuild Programme—Progress

11. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made on the progress of the Christchurch Schools Rebuild Programme?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): The Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme is a $1.137 billion programme involving 115 schools in greater Christchurch. The programme has great momentum and is on track to be completed on schedule, by 2022. In conjunction with a number of very enjoyable school and site visits in the last week, I have announced that the $26 million redevelopment of Hornby High School has commenced, the $3.5 million project at Hornby Primary School has been completed, the construction of the new co-located Avonside Girls’ High School and Shirley Boys High School at QEII Park has begun, the redevelopment at Wharenui School has been completed, and yesterday I turned the first sod—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know it is late in this session, but surely Ministers cannot get up and tediously and boringly read out their recent agenda of what remotely little work they have been doing.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance. Unfortunately, the rules of question time mean that a Minister can, in fact, do that. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I do, indeed, wish to complete the answer, because the question was about what announcements have been made, and all of these announcements have been made in the last week. I turned the first sod yesterday to mark the beginning of construction at Addington School and on the site of the new Wigram Primary School, and I have to say that is more great news in a wonderful week for Crusaders fans.

Joanne Hayes: How will these projects benefit schools in the greater Christchurch region?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I think even members opposite would have to concede that it is a huge undertaking to rebuild and redevelop 115 schools in the region.

Hon Member: How many?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: One hundred and fifteen schools in the Christchurch region. The Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme is also a great opportunity for schools to redesign all or parts of their school facilities to meet the needs of their current and future pupils. All 115 schools will be provided with fantastic modern facilities and learning environments, which will encourage learning to happen and pupils to achieve to the best of their potential. So I would like to thank and acknowledge the schools, the staff, and the boards of trustees of those schools for their commitment to securing the best facilities while also focusing on student achievement in their current environments.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Recently, by way of point of order, I indicated that an explanation that Mr Nash gave was by way of personal explanation. I have since checked and found out that it was part of debate, and not that. I therefore apologise to you, to the Minister, and to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that from my Assistant Speaker. The matter has been dealt with and, of course, the members always have that relatively recent Standing Order, Standing Order 359. If people think they have been misrepresented, and it does not reach a case of breach of privilege, there is a very easy process to follow. It has been followed once with success in this House, where I thought a particular person and his party’s position was quite seriously misrepresented in this House. So it is a mechanism available to all members. I suggest they become familiar with it.

Hon Steven Joyce: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I have since seen a number of articles that suggest that the member proposed a 10c a litre royalty. Perhaps—I do not know—we could table them in the House. They might be useful. Just for the House’s edification, I would be happy to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the members—[Interruption] Order! I have dealt with the matter, so I am not going back on that, but if the member is now seeking leave to table an article on the basis that there has been some debate about whether it was said, I will put the leave. I need the date and I need the source of the article.

Hon Steven Joyce: I will have to come back to you on the date. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I will wait till later. Supplementary question, Dr Megan Woods.

Dr Megan Woods: Did the original business case for the Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme show Addington School was scheduled for completion by the start of 2016 and the new Wigram school completed by the end of 2017; if so, why is he only announcing the commencement of these projects this week?

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

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I do not have all of the information the member is asking for, but I know she was delighted to be with me yesterday for the turning of the sod on that property at Wigram. I can assure her that the entire community is absolutely delighted with that development.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald article of Wednesday, 21 October 2015, where MP Stuart Nash called for a levy on the commercial use of water—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The article has been described. [Interruption] Order! In view of the issues that have developed in question time, I am going to put that leave. It is for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular article from the New Zealand Herald. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Health Services, Auckland—Elective Surgeries, Access, and Demand

12. JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Health: Does he take any responsibility after nine years of a National-led Government for delivering a health system where in just four weeks more than 700 elective surgeries in Auckland have been postponed, leading to clinicians saying “it’s not a sustainable system”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, including 18,500 extra elective surgeries and 48,000 more first specialist assessments across Auckland, as well as the new $39 million Elective Surgery Centre, the $9 million Waitakere emergency department, and the $10 million North Shore outpatients clinic. In regard to so-called elective delays due to winter-type illnesses, I have been informed this afternoon that there have been no elective delays at Waitematā District Health Board (DHB) due to winter illnesses, which calls into question the basic premise of her question. Be that as it may, despite 1 million flu vaccinations this year, there has been an unusually large number of presentations at hospitals. However, the district health boards have processes in place to cope.

Jenny Salesa: How will he respond to the record demand and bed shortages in Auckland, which led to the Counties Manukau chief medical officer saying it is the highest and fastest rate of increase in demand for services the DHB has ever experienced?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think the member should remember that there is $57 million more going into Counties Manukau this year as of 1 July. That provides funds for that DHB to distribute as it sees fit to meet population growth and demand pressures.

Jenny Salesa: Did he check with every DHB around the country before he claimed on Checkpoint last Friday that every DHB is managing to deliver the operations that are needed?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not need to check with DHBs around that because it is a fact that we are delivering 50,000 more operations than 8 years ago. You only have to look at those Auckland regional district health boards, where the percentage of operations in Auckland DHB has gone up by 60 percent over 9 years, Counties Manukau DHB has had an increase of 34 percent, and at Waitematā DHB the percentage of electives has increased by 74 percent over 9 years. That is a whopping extra 8,500 operations per year for the people of the Waitematā District Health Board.

Jenny Salesa: What action has he taken in the last 2 years to decrease GP fees for adults, in light of the 44 percent increase in the average GP fee since 2008, which can force people to turn up to hospitals for health services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have got to say these are much better questions than—

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Be that as it may, the member knows that GP fees are actually set in consultation with the DHB, but the bigger picture is there is an extra $5 billion that has gone into health under the course of this Government to increase access to health services.

Jenny Salesa: After 9 years in Government, is it now acceptable to him that patients are forced to sleep in waiting rooms in Auckland City Hospital because there are no spaces available for them?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go and verify those claims, but I think it is pretty unlikely. The fact is that services at Auckland District Health Board have increased dramatically, and there is another $69 million going into that DHB as of 1 July this year to complement the extra $436 million that Auckland DHB has received over 9 years. But, look, there is no doubt that in health there is always more to do.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What a week we have seen in politics, and it has been a week. I am sure the Opposition can appreciate the lows, the highs, the lows, the highs, the lows, the lows, and the lows that it has been going through. As I said, you can change the lead singer, and the spotlight might go on, and the lights might be a bit shiny, but if the band is still out of tune, then nobody is listening. And the band is not just out of tune; it is actually still playing the same old song. I quite like that the first policy that Jacinda Ardern said she would stick with was R & D tax credits. That is from 2007, guys—2007. Most of the water stuff that we heard today was the same as Labour had in 2014, I have got to say. I think the highlight of it all for me was Saturday’s regional fuel tax, which was its policy, again, in 2007. So the song is still the same, and I can tell you, I do not reckon the public is going to listen for that long.

So in the first week—in the first week—we have seen two new taxes be introduced by Labour, and those two new taxes are going to put costs on the very people it purports to care most about. Those disadvantaged New Zealanders who are struggling daily—who, yes, do eat our food and need our farmers to actually produce that for them, and who actually do drive their cars—are going to see extra costs on them and their households from the very party that is supposed to be doing the most for them.

Man, do we have a marriage of convenience that has become very inconvenient and more than a bit awkward, I think, in the last few days. You know that memorandum of understanding (MOU)? Actually, I think MOU now stands for a “marriage of unpleasantness”, because that is pretty much what it is. We had Andrew Little, of course, who is the runaway bride—one of, I think, about four or five we have had so far. Then, of course, we have got Jacinda Ardern, who has stepped up to take his place. Now she has found herself pretty much at the altar with a partner whom there is no way she is in love with. She does not quite know what to do with the other one, and it is all starting to get a bit awkward.

I am not quite sure whether Metiria is actually going to be at the altar or not. Has that decision really been made? We have still got the co-leader of the Greens, who is still the co-leader of the Greens, yet not a Minister in any sort of Government—which they have to form together, by the way, just to get numbers that are anywhere close to being on the Government benches. Well, we have not clarified whether or not that member might actually be a Minister outside of Cabinet, because we have not actually heard from the Labour leadership—I am looking forward to hearing about that—as to whether or not it is genuinely ruling out Metiria Turei as a Minister outside of Cabinet. I think the public deserves to know that. By her own accountabilities, she is not fit to be around the Cabinet table and was withdrawn from that, but Labour, of course, wants to withdraw itself completely from any kind of conversation that goes to it. Literally, though, the Greens and Labour cannot live without each other and are still going through what I will call their marriage of inconvenience.

Then we have got New Zealand First, which is there trying to be the backup band, trying to say that it has to be around that table. Winston Peters is in the wings trying to make out that he is the one who is actually playing the tune, and I am not sure how that is going.

The guest list is looking decidedly messy. It is a messy divorce before the dowry has even been paid. It is a messy divorce with no real direction, so I look forward to the next few weeks. I look forward to going out there and talking to New Zealanders about what is genuinely important to them—about the growth in this country, about the direction that it is going. You will not hear this side saying—as we have heard from Labour members repeatedly, they are not sure what to do with the growth, so they will just whack on more tax and, actually, they think we should take a breather. Well, this is not about taking a breather; this is actually about driving forward the advantages that this country already has, which New Zealanders are up for. What New Zealanders are looking for is leadership and a Government that can really keep them moving in the right direction. To the Opposition: rock on.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. That speech from the Hon Paula Bennett is a classic example of the Government’s bombast on the economy. We repeatedly hear the Government saying what a wonderful economic manager it is, but we should remind the Government that we have just had a second quarter of negative, real terms, per capita growth—that is two terms of decline in per capita GDP. It is not only population that is pumping up the figures for the Government in a desperate attempt to make it look like it is a good economic manager; it is polluters. They are getting away without paying for the cost of their pollution. You cannot swim in 60 percent of our rivers. It is mining on conservation land, subsidised by taxpayers who are picking up the bill for cleaning up after oil production and mining. There has been a 19 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions that are uncosted, and we have heard that the Government is about to pay $1.4 billion in the future in terms of foreign carbon credits.

By contrast, the Greens will bring in a sustainable economy. We will make polluters pay and we will clean up our rivers. We will defend our conservation land and we will save the 80 percent of native bird species that are threatened. We will invest in a green infrastructure fund to reduce our emissions and create exciting opportunities for businesses in the rapidly expanding clean economy.

The second way that the Government is pumping up the economy is by dirty money and speculation. Tax-dodgers and criminals have, according to the Financial Times, used New Zealand as a soft touch. We have seen speculation driving up house prices in New Zealand, and especially in Auckland, making it the most unaffordable city in the world. The Greens, by contrast, will ensure that we have a productive economy. We will put in a capital gains tax to divert money from housing into the productive economy. We will crack down on multinationals and tax-dodgers. We will restrict house purchases to New Zealand residents only. We will support our small to medium sized enterprises and ensure that they are not, as they are at the moment, disadvantaged by unfair competition from foreign multinationals. We will support innovation and add value to our agricultural commodities. At the moment, our unprocessed commodities are a higher proportion of our exports than they were when this Government got into office.

The Government has managed the economy for the benefit of the few, not the many. Twenty percent of kids live in cold, damp homes and they suffer from respiratory diseases as a result. We have the highest number of people on low incomes living under housing stress. We have the highest rate of homelessness in the world. The Greens will fix our ripped social safety net. We will boost benefits and provide incentives for work, and make the welfare system supportive, not punitive. Our economy should serve people, not the other way round.

The Greens will build an economy for all New Zealanders, not for the few. We will add value to our commodities by supporting innovation, supporting high skills, and making our society fairer and more equal. These are the ways that we will drive our economy towards sustainability, towards productivity, and towards fairness. These would be profound changes in the economy in New Zealand. We would be a low-emissions economy that has a reputation around the world—deservedly so—as one of the leaders in being truly a clean, green, and sustainable economy that provides benefits for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Farmers and growers up and down the country will be heading home later on this afternoon. They will be checking their mailboxes for their mail that comes through. They will be opening up those invoices today or maybe later in the week. There will be a special letter delivered to them today from the Labour Party. Inside there will be an invoice from Jacinda Ardern and David Parker. On the top of that letter it says: “Invoice for water”.

But there is something a little different about this invoice. Normally, when farmers and growers get an invoice, it is for feed, it is for grazing, it is for buying stock, it is for fixing the tractor or doing up the irrigation system and the like, but this one is a blank invoice. It is a blank invoice delivered to all of our hard-working farmers and growers up and down New Zealand today. It does not have any detail about price. However, in the fine print at the bottom of the invoice there are some very important details that our growers and farmers must read: “Sorry, we haven’t worked out how much we’re going to charge you yet. I hope you understand that I’ve only had a couple of days on the job. We’re going to work that stuff through after the election, with the Greens, if we get into power. I know this stuff seriously impacts your livelihood, but try not to take it personally. Keep positive. Lots of love, Jacinda Ardern. Kiss, kiss.”

Today’s Labour announcement on water policy sucks. It is badly thought out; it is badly implemented. It is going to damage the most productive sector of the New Zealand economy, and that is the primary industries. Today Labour slammed the door shut on the primary sector. In the process, Damien O’Connor got smashed to pieces. He got rolled by a caucus that is more excited about the urban vote than the rural vote. On that side of the House, they do not care about the regions. They do not care about provincial New Zealand. They do not care about hard-working farmers and growers up and down the country.

Let us just unpick this policy for a couple of minutes. Within 5 years, all intensively stocked land near waterways will be needed to be fenced but, importantly, there will be setbacks for riparian planting. Now, it is all well and good, is it not—setbacks for riparian planting—we applaud farmers who have made that decision. But let us think practically about the 26,000 kilometres that have already been fenced that may not have been riparian planted. So now Labour is out there proposing that all of those posts and wires should be pulled up and set back. Is it a metre? Is it 2 metres? Is that 4 metres across the entirety? Think about the productivity; think about the weeds that will grow. Think about the slowdown of the New Zealand economy as a result.

Then we come to the prices. Stuart Nash was exposed big time this afternoon, was he not? Because while Jacinda Ardern and David Parker are saying “Let’s all come together after the election.” Stuart Nash is out there already proposing 10c a litre. Then, very importantly, if you extrapolate those numbers across—I have got them here. Importantly, irrigation uses about 6 trillion litres annually across the country. So if you extrapolate 10c a litre across irrigators, that is $600 billion. Then, if you think about the water that needs to be utilised to produce just 1 litre of milk, that is $40 for a litre of milk. The cost of this policy is going to be enormous, and not just on the people who underpin the New Zealand economy, but consumers. Consumers are going to pay for this daft policy because up will go the price of vegetables; up will go the price of food. This policy is ludicrous.

Now my message to the people in the primary sector, who are really wound up on this policy announcement today, is that they should bombard Jacinda Ardern’s email. They should be ringing her office and demanding a meeting this week or early next week, not putting it off until 24 September, because that is terrible.

KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): The member who just took his seat, Nathan Guy, is just making stuff up. Let me tell you why National members are making stuff up. They are making stuff up because they are worried. They have to talk like that. They have to downplay our policy, because they are worried. And why are they worried? That is because 8 days ago “Hurricane Ardern” swept into this country and has taken the political establishment by storm, and they are worried.

We saw it today in their questions asking about parity and the women’s pay gap. That is because they know they are bleeding the women’s vote. They know that Jacinda Ardern has cut through with women. She has cut through with men. She has cut through with young people. We have cut through with Māori. We know that the National Government knows that the game has changed, and its members are worried—absolutely scared.

But what are we here for in politics? We are here to make a difference for people. Let me tell you about one man I met on Saturday afternoon after the Northland rugby league final. May I just digress and congratulate the Moerewa Tigers for their win against the Takahiwai Warriors. But as I was walking out of that game, I met Victor. Victor is a 32-year-old fully qualified builder. He has got a young baby in his arms and the baby, he tells me, has a number of allergies that are life threatening. His wife, his partner, was there as well. Victor said to me “Look, I’ve saved $19,000 for a house,” but the cost of a low-quartile house—a low-value house—in Whangarei, is such that he will need a $71,500 deposit. He has been working for 12 years. He said “Kelvin, I’m struggling.” If he works for another 12 years and can save at the same rate, he is only going to have $40,000 for a deposit when he needs $71,500. He will be 44 by that time. So if he works another 12 years, he is going to be 56 and he still will not have saved enough for a deposit to buy his house.

Victor is struggling, and I thought to myself “My gosh, this is what we’re here for—to help people like Victor.” What am I going to do as a politician? What are we going to do, as politicians, to help people—not just this Victor, but all the other Victors right throughout the electorate of Te Tai Tokerau and all the other Victors and their families throughout New Zealand?

Then as I was driving back to Auckland I thought “Actually, this is what we are going to do.” We are going to fund a health system so that his son can get the medical attention that he needs. What else are we going to do? We are going to build thousands of houses to allow people like Victor to buy an affordable house. What are we going to do? Our families package is going to put just a little bit more extra money in their pockets so that maybe, as well as saving for a deposit, they can put a little bit away, something small, and do something special for their family. Look, Victor has to have something to hope for. He wants the dignity to be able to buy a house and give his family safety and security, like any other hard-working father in New Zealand.

And what else are we going to do? We are going to make sure that—it does not matter where Victor buys his house—the nearest school is going to be an exceptional school. We are going to do small things like pay $150 a year for school fees also just to help Victor out so that he can probably put a little bit extra away for that little something special for his family. But not only that—when his son finally gets to university, his son is going to be able to study for 3 years for free. So Victor has the hope that he will have a house. He has also got the hope inside him that his son does not have to carry on the struggle that Victor, his father, has. So that is what we are going to do for New Zealand. That is what we are going to do for all the Victors in New Zealand.

So let’s do it. Let’s do this for Victor. Let’s do this for Victor’s partner. Let’s do this for Victor’s son. Let’s do this for all New Zealanders and make sure that all New Zealanders get on with life and have a little bit for the family. We do not ask for much. All we ask is that every Victor in New Zealand is able to provide for his family and have hope and dignity that his child’s struggle is not going to be the same as his struggle.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I am going to tell you what they are going to do for Victor: the Labour Party is going to destroy the New Zealand economy.

The first thing that we see today in Labour’s water policy—I want to see that member, Kelvin Davis, go to Ngāi Tahu, who are doing a major investment with irrigation in the North of Canterbury, and tell them that they cannot do that anymore. That is what you did today. The Ngāi Tahu development is closed. It is gone. It cannot happen under Labour. What about your Māori caucus with that? What about going around the rest of the country and telling the farmers that they cannot produce; that they have to cut down the number of stock on a property; and that, as the Minister said, they have to fence inordinate lengths and they have to re-fence? Go to all those sheep and beef farms in Northland and tell them that they have got to fence every little waterway. I would love to see you do that, mate, because you would last about 2 minutes with them.

And with your mates over here—New Zealand First—this guy here, Mr Winston Peters, has been going around the country saying that he is going to stop these plans around water. He is going to stop this. He has been going to Waikato. His very candidate from the Waikato stood in the regional council against plans that are half as bad as Labour’s. Come on, Winston. Stand up and tell the truth about what you actually want to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that there is a reason why that member is infringing against parliamentary rules; it is because he is going to go shortly, but he cannot get away with it now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot get away with making a point of order like that, but I assume the point of order you are wanting to make is that he has to refer to a member correctly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Precisely.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is very well made. The member will refer to members with the correct intitule.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Let us have a look at this policy. This policy says—

Hon Member: Unpick it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. Look at the policy—irrigation of farms.

Sue Moroney: Are you worried about the famers’ vote? Is that going out too?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I will come to that, Sue Moroney. Irrigation of farms—what about farmers who have bore water out in the Waikato? Do they have to pay for the bore water? We do not know. How about horticulturalists? Do they have to pay? We do not know. How about businesses that use water, like the breweries or any of those kinds of businesses that use large amounts of water for their production? Do they have to pay? Do dams have to pay? Apparently not. Do cities have to pay? Does Auckland have to pay the Waikato for our water? I reckon that is what the Labour Party is wanting to do, but it is not actually going to do it, because it knows it cannot do that.

The leader of the Labour Party was on TV this week, and she said that it has to be a consistent policy. There is no consistency in this policy. It is a deliberate attack on farming communities, the productive heart of this country, and it will ruin this country—and it cannot happen. In the Waikato there have been a number of proposals to do this through the regional council, and it has taken an 80-year plan. The Labour Party intends to do a lot more than that in one generation.

In one generation the Labour Party wants to clean up every river in New Zealand. That is not possible in the plan that this country has got through our regional councils. Work needs to be done in that area; nobody disputes that. We need to work on our water quality, but we cannot do that at the expense of our productive sector in one fell swoop. That is a deliberate and prolonged attack on the dairy sector and other sectors in the New Zealand economy.

This shows the true colours of the leader of the Labour Party. The leader of the Labour Party is not a moderate Labour person. She will want to be seen on TV as the smiley, moderate person. The leader of the Labour Party is actually a Green Party member. The leader of the Labour Party is taking Green transport policy and Green water policy, and that is the real nature of what we are seeing in this House today. This is a deliberate attack on New Zealand farmers and it should not go ahead, and it will be stopped at the ballot box, because people know that.

The Labour Party is saying: “Trust us. We’ll negotiate after the election. We’ll work out the price. We’ll work out the distance. Come and talk to us. We’ll be there.” There is no way that it will do that. The Labour Party will screw every New Zealand farmer when it has got a chance—that is its history. It will do that after the election, and the farmers will have no power when they walk into the room and try to negotiate.

Remember what we are saying here if you are in the New Zealand agriculture business; if you are in the New Zealand downstream businesses, in every little town through this country; if you are in every provincial city that relies on agriculture for its base; and if you are in every major city that relies on exports coming from our agriculture—Labour will kill this industry. It will kill New Zealand. And Labour will not be allowed to get away with it, because the public out there will stop it on 23 September.

We cannot have this attack on the productive heart of New Zealand. It will take away jobs. It will take opportunities, and it will take away the future of New Zealand. And shame on all that side of the House who are going to stand behind it and let it happen. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It is true. In the boardrooms, in the staff room, in the smoko halls, under the bonnets, even on the farms, and in those places where people are meeting, they are talking about what Labour proposes to do. It is true.

It is true because people want to understand that there can be a different way. I have heard the contribution of the member David Bennett around farmers. Now, what he did not say was what has happened in the Waikato with the healthy rivers plan—they are already making decisions around the change in land use that impacts on water. That was done through a consultative process and that was done with agreements of people from very different sectors, knowing that the hope is to improve water quality and by changing land use over a long period of time—not all of a sudden—things could be done for the betterment of the environment. So it is true, people are talking about the policies that Jacinda Ardern is announcing.

So let us look at them, because behind them sit some very strong ideas that will drive the future of the country if Labour gets the privilege to serve as the Government. Under Labour, the economy will be about people before profit. Under Labour, we will prioritise public interests over private interests. Under Labour, we will see investment in health and in education so that opportunity is made real for the majority of people, not just the few. And under Labour, we will see the prioritisation of an economy that is underpinned by environmental responsibilities. So let us look at some of the things that have been announced just over these last few days since the leadership change in Labour.

The regional petrol tax—the Government will frame this as yet another tax, but Aucklanders want to see less congestion. They want to see more investment in public transport. They do want to see a link to the airport, because if you are going to get movement to and through the city, your public transport system underpins what can be an effective use of public infrastructure and investment in public infrastructure to get people around the city in a more efficient way. People are worried about congestion in Auckland and they think about the lost opportunity of people just sitting in cars on motorways. So yes, a regional petrol tax will ring-fence investment into where there is need, and there is need in Auckland.

But let us take the issue of water pricing. The reason why Jacinda Ardern said that this is a matter that must, in the first 100 days, go to a forum where people need to talk about it—just like pricing on carbon, pricing on water will require people to think about how we transition towards an effective and efficient system. She has sent a clear signal to people that Labour is prepared to deal with the issue of putting a price on water so that the more sustainable use of water can be dealt with as a strategic priority, but how that happens over a period of time is something that must happen by talking with key stakeholders. So this is a key signal to farmers, to business people, to irrigators, and to environmentalists that Labour is prepared to have the conversation. It is a strategic conversation and it is a necessity. Pricing on carbon is the same type of debate, and Labour never shied away from that either.

So yes, people are talking about it, and it is true. It will require a shift in priority from where the effort is now to where the investment should be for tomorrow. It is about the next generation, and it is about a strategic vision for the future, because the structural challenge that we have as a nation is in reversing inequality and poverty and the significant gap between the haves and the have-nots. So that is why people are talking about the policies that Jacinda Ardern has been announcing over the last couple of days, and we welcome it.

We welcome it because no longer can people sleep in cars, no longer can people live in cold rentals, and no longer can people see the dim prospect of purchasing a home. Under Labour we want to see that reverse. But more importantly, for our kids—we do not want to see 70,000 of our kids not engaged in education, employment, or training. We want to ensure that where there is investment there is opportunity, and that that can be realised in a very real way.

Just coming back to the water issue—actually, planting off riverways could create opportunities for many young people. Riparian planting, fencing, and all of that could help people get back to the grass roots and to making a difference at a community level. I know my community would welcome it.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I am wondering how that member, Nanaia Mahuta, and her party are going to pay for all the things that they have been talking about this afternoon, like helping Victor pay for his house, and all the other wonderful things that she has mentioned, like health and education. The only way Labour is going to do it is by taxing farmers and sending them broke. Tax farmers—tax the people who are making 70 percent of the trade out of this country! While they are actually busy out there at the moment, calving their cows and about to lamb their lambs, let us give them a blank invoice, as Minister Guy said. Let them write out a blank cheque!

One of the reasons I came into this House was that I was pretty keen to close up the rural-urban divide. Absolutely, today, with this announcement, the Labour Party is turning the rural-urban divide into a chasm. We are all in this water debate together. There is no consistency in Labour’s policy. There is not even any detail in Labour’s policy. We absolutely do not know what it means.

Two or 3 years ago, when the dairy price was going down, down, down, guess who was sitting on the other side of this House going “Crisis! Crisis!”? Now dairy farmers are actually getting back into a better space, where they can make some money and can pay some tax, and all of a sudden that party wants to take it all off them. Well, that party does not even know it is trying to create a crisis. Its members sit over there and talk about regional New Zealand, and they talk about provincial New Zealand. I will tell you what—provincial New Zealand is starting to do pretty nicely. It is getting broadband, it is getting roads, it is getting policing, and it is getting all of the things that it needs to develop—provincial New Zealand. And, hello, guess what? Labour is going to make it a ghost town, because there will be nobody living out there. So we have got to keep going with the programmes that we are on about.

The other thing I would really like to know from that side of the House is—its members talk about taking young people who are on benefits out to fence waterways and to plant trees. I do not think that is such a bad idea, except that I am wondering: do they know where Āria is? Do they know where Te Anga is? Do they know where Marokopa and Tokirima are? How are they actually going to get there? It is all very commendable, but, you know, you are going to have to have a hell of a lot of transport to do that. Labour has not thought it through.

By the way, farmers in Taranaki have already, in Taranaki alone, planted 4.3 million trees. That is in Taranaki alone. That is waterways fenced off. That is trees planted. That is, actually, almost a tree for every person who lives in New Zealand, and that is in Taranaki alone. Farmers are actually out working on these things, and, in my experience, all that farmers want to know is: “Where am I now? Where do you need to go? Help me; provide the tools. Give me the tools. Help me with the productivity.” There is a whole lot of new smart technology coming on that is going to help those waterways. That is why we are putting broadband in. That is why we are making it happen. Farmers are quite capable and are doing these things on their own.

What is really interesting is that households and councils would be exempt, and that the money would be used to assist cleaning up the polluted waterways. OK, so farmers are already planting trees and fencing and cleaning up their waterways, and now we are going to tax them, according to the Labour Party, so that we can take some more money off them so that they can pay again to do what they are already doing? We are all in this together. We have got a map of what is happening with waterways out in the country, and it is not just the farmers who are responsible for what is happening in the waterways. They have done their share.

When we talk about irrigation—I have got a lovely little map here, and it talks about natural river flow being maintained. It talks about nutrient management plans but also coastal biodiversity. Guess what? With irrigation, you can actually help coastal biodiversity. Flow is restored to lowland spring-fed streams. All communities and marae have access to high-quality drinking water—thriving and prosperous communities. It does not actually take that much to work out. It is not rocket science that everybody in our community benefits from water storage.

And, hello, people, we do not have a shortage of water. Look outside on most days. On any given day of 2017, it has been raining. All we need to do is store it and use it wisely. So, New Zealand, let us not do this. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, it is astonishing sitting here listening to these two old parties arguing. And, I have got to say, one thing we all know—nanna told me a long time ago—is that leopards do not change their spots, do they?

After our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, had done his magnificent tour of provisional New Zealand, actually visiting all the places that that member, Barbara Kuriger, just talked about—and my questions to that member are (1) do you know where those places actually are and (2) can you pronounce them? But our leader has been there, and the picture being painted is quite different to that which National is deluding itself over.

What we found absolutely astonishing was that when Winston Peters came back from the provincial tour, suddenly National and Labour rediscovered the provinces and put their hands up and said: “Me too. We too are concerned about the provinces.” But a day is a long time in politics, we say, and a week is an eternity. And 1 week later, with a change in Labour leadership, suddenly we are back to reality: it is a myopic focus, relentlessly positive, on Auckland—Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, Auckland. It has not been missed, out there in provincial New Zealand, can I tell the National Party. Now, National Party, they are hearing you guys say “Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, Auckland.” all the time, and they are saying: “Nothing’s changed.”

While we sit here and listen to the old hat parties, Pepsi and Coke, arguing over Auckland’s woes on its roads, provincial New Zealand is saying: “How come funding assistance for rural roads has been cut? How come we’re staring down the barrel of a one-road network plan from NZTA that’s going to carve up provincial New Zealand and cause some tarseal roads to go back to gravel? How come we’ve got no funding assistance for the tens of thousands of one-way bridges throughout provincial New Zealand? And, by the way, you still haven’t built the 10 in Northland—how come?”.

Do not bleat on about “Auckland, Auckland, Auckland” to us in the Wairarapa when the gorge is still closed and there is not one digger on site. Do not whine to us in your silly little squabble with Labour—a silly squabble over rail, fast rail, light rail, and roading problems—when provincial New Zealand is dying, not for its own lack of work ethic, not because it is not on the game, not because it does not have the best farmers in the world, but because it does not have infrastructure support from this Government. This Government is now in a bidding war with Labour over Auckland, Auckland, Auckland. Well, out in provincial New Zealand there is a message coming. There is a train coming. It is going to follow that bus that went right around the country. On that train is going to be New Zealand First, and it is going to come in with a mandate and an endorsement from provincial New Zealand that will tell the National Government that, clearly, it is over—over.

Do not talk to us about Labour’s water plan. We know it is a load of rubbish. We know that Labour has forgotten the poor. We know that Labour does not understand the impact on poor families, the working poor, and how it is going to hit them in the supermarkets. We know that. We had the discussions with Federated Farmers; we know what food production prices will do. We know all that. But, National, do not sit there gloating. We are not interested in your silly little speeches. Tell us what you did behind the scenes with the deal with the Waikato authority over fifty-fifty allocation with Māori and royalties to Māori. Who is going to be paying that?

Do not talk to us about these things, and do not talk to us about the impact on farmers when you are signing off and endorsing the Horizons Regional Council’s One Plan. The One Plan—in that document it says that farm profitability will drop by 40 percent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

RON MARK: Farm profitability will be cut by the Horizons Regional Council under this Government—by this Government allowing it to go through—by 40 percent, or, in a best case, 20 to 25 percent. That is going to see farmers walking off their land. That is going to see farmers being told by Horizons: “You can no longer farm dairy—sell your cows.” Those farmers will probably try to sell their farms to Jacinda Ardern or the front bench of the Labour Party, which now wants to put them out of business as well.

But you are both the same, National and Labour. There is no difference. This lot purports to represent the poor, but it is just going to hand the poor a grocery bill that they have never ever thought of or dreamt of. And over on that side of the House, the National Government is going to preside over the death of farming in the Horizons region. We are tired of Pepsi and Coke. It is time for a change.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is—your time is up.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Might be Lemon and Paeroa over there, eh? Anyway, I am really mad as hell about this water policy that Labour is touting around the countryside. I am mad as hell because this is harking right back to the Rogernomics days when Labour kicked the guts out of farmers. I am standing here, and I am going to be a voice for the sheep and beef farmers, because that is where I come from. Those are my roots—sheep and beef farming.

To kick the guts of the farmers again—is that the only Labour policy that is actually coming out there? I am going to say that the primary sector—and I will keep on saying this, along with my colleagues—is the backbone of the economy of this country. It always has been and it always will be. If you tax the water that farmers use, you may as well just kiss this economy goodbye. Not once have I heard from the Opposition members on how they are going to replace that piece of the economy. I have not heard a damn thing, just “Let’s kick the guts out of the farmers”. I do not want to see any farmer in this country go back to those days.

Let us talk about forestry. I think it was under—let us have a think. Oh, yes, it was a Labour-led Government that strip-felled between Rotorua and Taupō. Yes, there were lovely farms there, but it strip-felled and it never replaced those trees. When we start to look at all the things that Labour has not done for this country, and things that it is proposing in its tax, tax, tax, and spend—nowhere in any of the things that it is saying is how it is going to grow the economy.

If you take out the primary sector, we will see an increase in unemployment. Three hundred and fifty thousand people work in the primary sector. There is touted be another 50,000 more people who will be looking to work in this sector up to 2025. When we start to look at that water policy, we are going to see all of that gone. All of those people are going to be lining up, with Victor, on the unemployment benefit, because this water tax will have kicked the guts out of their bosses and out of the primary sector, and they will have lost their jobs.

So we will have an increase in unemployment, an increase in the number of beneficiaries, and an increase in the cost of food products. Just today I was having a talk with some of my colleagues, and they talked about how once you start increasing the cost of food to all New Zealanders, that is when we start to look at the imported stuff. That would be a very sad day. The previous Prime Minister, Sir John Key, set this country up so that we would be like the farmers market of the world—of the world. This country has been set up for that, and under the Labour Party water policy that is going to be chucked out the back door. We will no longer be competitive. We will lose our trade advantage, because our farmers will be pushed to the wall. They will be pushed to the wall, and we cannot have that on this side of the House.

I can see our farmers coming out in protest on that particular bill. I can see Labour on the Opposition benches for another 3 or another 6 years because it has not got—

Hon Member: Probably 9.

JOANNE HAYES: For 9 years it is going to be there over there rotting, because its policies are about attack, tax, and spend, and no way is it going to replenish those coffers.

In fact, National has replenished those coffers. That is why we are in surplus. We are in surplus; we are leading the world when it comes to surplus for this country. So when we start looking at that, we see that Labour’s policies are wanting to spend all of that. Labour is wanting to take us back to those dark ages, and we are not going to go back there. We are going to be standing there fighting alongside our people within the primary sector, because they deserve a voice in this House. All of this side is giving them their voice.

Let us talk about Māori farmers, because not just the Pākehā farmers; it is the Māori farmers as well who will not benefit from a water tax. We have just managed to get them to a point whereby everybody is starting to make headway within the primary sector, and that side of the House wants to cut it out. New Zealand First sits over there and talks about Pepsi and Coke. Well, it is just a flat Lemon and Paeroa—a flat Lemon and Paeroa. You would not even have it with your gin, and you would not even have it with your vodka. It is so flat you would not even put ice in that Lemon and Paeroa. I should not really say Lemon and Paeroa, should I, because that is a New Zealand town, Paeroa. I should really say—

Hon Scott Simpson: That’s right. In the Coromandel electorate.

JOANNE HAYES: Ha! I should really say that it is some sort of foreign something from overseas that that group is. It is absolutely a nothing, coming in here and saying that to us. This side of the House is the side that has actually grown this country and the economy, and we will continue to do that after this election when we are voted back in.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): The Deputy Prime Minister finished her contribution to the general debate saying “rock on”, but the real thing is “it’s on”. It is on out there, and the thing is that the National Government knows it. Its members were sitting in their seats 2 weeks ago, kind of complacent, thinking this is in the bag, thinking that everything is all right: “Bill English is our leader—you know, we don’t really like him; he’s a bit boring, but he’ll be OK. He’ll get us through.” But things have changed, and the National Government is worried. I know that because you can just sense it in the air. Its members are hearing it when they out there campaigning out in their electorates: “Oh, we were thinking about voting for you guys, but not anymore.” There is something else, there is another alternative, and I am looking forward to that day when things do change.

I hope they do change for the people of my electorate, because I look forward to the day when houses are being built in the spaces that are empty, where this Government pulled down homes and said it would replace them, but for 9 long years nothing has been done. I want to see families in those houses. I want to see kids playing on those streets, in those areas that have been left and ignored by this Government. Because that is what New Zealand needs. We need some solutions around housing. That is what I want to hear—building going on in those neighbourhoods that this Government has neglected. It promised the 25 families who had their houses demolished that it would build those homes again, and nothing has happened.

That is what I want to see happen and hear happen in my community after 23 September, because it is on. It is on, and if you are listening to this on the radio or you are watching this on the internet, help us do it—help us do it. Be part of it, because when things change, they change in the community, and we can show this Government, which has ignored those communities for the last 9 years, that it is not good enough to leave families in the lurch—leave families in the lurch; that is exactly what it has done.

What else do I want to see after 23 September, when we change the Government? Proper healthcare in our communities. I have been the MP for Mana for 7 years now, and twice I have had to fight to keep the GP service at Kenepuru Hospital open—twice now. Back in about 2012, they said: “Oh, we’re thinking of closing it overnight.” Why? “Because there’s not enough money to run it.” Six months ago, it was: “Oh, we’re going to look at it again.” Why? “Because there’s not enough money to run it.”

We will make sure there is enough money going into health. We will not have to fight for the absolute basics for the people of Porirua and the Kāpiti coast. We can make that happen on 23 September, because it is on. It is not “rock on”; that is what these guys wanted. It is not “rock on”. Rock on—that is the Prime Minister; he is the rock. We are saying that it is on—it is absolutely on.

The other thing I want to do, and this is not necessarily something that—the National Government says it is tough on law and order. I am going to keep crowing on about this until 23 September. Over the last 9 years of this National Government, which says it is backing our police, I have lost in my area over 40 front-line police officers.

Hon Annette King: How many?

KRIS FAAFOI: It is 40. It is not my number—theirs. We started out in 2008, and the number I got from the Minister’s office was 146 front-line police officers in the Kāpiti-Mana area. So when I asked what the number is now, what did I get back? There are 102. This is from a Government that says it is tough on law and order and is backing our police, and yet in my area we have lost 40 police officers over the last 8 years. Does that make my community any safer? Does that make members of that community feel any safer, when you have to tell them that they have lost 40 officers over the last 8 years? Is that what this Government is telling people? Apparently, this Government is telling people that there are more police on the streets. But that is not the reality.

So ladies and gentlemen watching or listening at home, it is on. If you want action on housing, if you want building to happen for those families who want good, safe, affordable homes to rent and buy, it is on. If you want to make sure that people can get the operations they need, and see a doctor at 2 o’clock in the morning if their kids are sick, then it is on. If you want to make sure your community is safe, with enough police officers—and I can tell you one thing: police officers are coming up to me in the street and saying they are worried about the staffing levels in my area. If you are worried about the safety of your community and want to make sure there are enough—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you asking me, or someone else?

KRIS FAAFOI: Oh, I am sure you did in your time too, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the people are worried about crime prevention and having enough police, it is on. On 23 September get it on, get out and vote, and make sure we do this. As the catchphrase goes, as the slogan goes: “Let’s do this”.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I would like to remind Mr Faafoi that we on this side of the House knew this was on, on 21 September 2014. You worked it out only last week.

I want to talk for a little bit about the primary sector in New Zealand and what is going on out there. We currently produce about 70 percent of New Zealand’s cash receipts in provincial New Zealand. We have GDP of about 7 percent, and that is not a bad thing. It shows we are reasonably efficient. Approximately 400,000 jobs rely on, or are directly involved in, agriculture. The farming community of New Zealand manages a large part of New Zealand’s land mass, and the primary sector as a whole also oversees a good deal of our offshore economic zone.

Fletcher Tabuteau: We can’t hear the man speak.

IAN McKELVIE: Ah, that is good. There are some factors critical to the future success of this sector, both as a vital part of the New Zealand economy and as a good corporate citizen. A truly sustainable environment is absolutely critical to agriculture—land and water. Playing our part in the climate change challenges and the solutions facing the world is critical to the future of our agricultural community, as well. Ensuring water is well used in a sustainable and productive manner is also critical, and ensuring our people involved in the sector are looked after and managed in a manner so that they can both enjoy life and get plenty out of it.

There are, of course, many other factors involved in agriculture, and I will touch on a couple of them shortly. However, I want to—appropriately, I guess—talk about water. Having listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition speak this morning, I want to express my dismay that a person in her position can have such a poor, ill-conceived, and misrepresentative view of our No. 1 industry, and I will touch on that in a minute.

Some of the other critical things to agriculture are animal welfare, food safety, biosecurity, and health and safety. When you touch on the health and safety thing, I do not think Opposition members have thought for a minute about the ramifications of putting a whole lot of young people out in provincial rural New Zealand and, in a lot of cases, 50 to 100 kilometres from any kind of civilisation. Have they thought of the health and safety factors around that? No, they have not. Who is going to take responsibility for that? No doubt the future Government, if those members are to be the Government, will take responsibility for that. They have not considered it at all.

We must learn from our past mistakes, and to tax, charge, and implement policy without science or solutions to rectify an issue is surely not in New Zealand’s best interests. Farmers in New Zealand are great adaptors and innovators, who can move to best practice very quickly and effectively. National’s policy has always been to assist our business communities with the tools to do so, not hit them with a sledgehammer.

I want to get on to a topic that Ron Mark touched on, and every time he speaks in this House he displays his lack of knowledge of provincial New Zealand, frankly, which I think is an amazing thing. None the less, he talked about the Horizons One Plan. I want to talk about some comments that the Leader of the Opposition made this morning in respect of issues that arise from the Horizons One Plan and the challenges that Horizons Regional Council has had in implementing that plan. Ron Mark did touch on that, although not correctly.

One of the real challenges we have got in New Zealand is to implement nitrate- and phosphate-leaching policies in a manner that can be managed, that is sustainable, and that will ensure that our provincial rural communities remain intact. To listen to the Leader of the Opposition this morning, she clearly had no—I guess she did not gather the challenges that are involved in these plans that we have put in place, and the Waikato plan is now following the Horizons One Plan much down the same lines.

I do not have any problem with that. I do not think the agricultural sector has any problem with the ultimate goals of these plans. We certainly have problems with the implementation of these plans in 5 years, as the Leader of the Opposition talked about this morning. There is no way it can possibly work, and it will undermine provincial rural New Zealand. It will undermine our productivity. It will almost put a stop in parts of my electorate—particularly the northern Horowhenua and the Waimarino—to much of the horticulture that goes on there at present. It is also going to seriously challenge the horticultural areas around Pukekohe, but there will be no problem—we will just shove the houses on them, I guess.

There are some significant challenges to the policy that the Labour Party announced this morning that go way beyond the fact that it is another tax and another, I guess, increase in costs to the production in our food sector. So there are some serious challenges around this, and I think the biggest one is the fact that we are trying to implement something without sufficiently enabling the science to assist in the solutions to it, because there will be solutions to this, but they just will not be achieved in 5 years. They might be achieved in the time frame that this Government has given it, and I think that is the reason we have managed it in a moderate manner to date. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is a quote that has been used more than once, but it is one of my favourites, from Nelson Mandela, which is: “The true character of a society is revealed in how it treats its children.” It seems to me, too, that the true character of a Government is also revealed in how it treats children.

We have had a lot of discussion in this House over the last 4 or 5 years about the well-being of our children. We have had debate after debate about trying to get school lunches in our schools so that we can feed our children and make sure that our children have enough. We have had debate after debate in this House about ensuring that families have enough money to sustain themselves, to be able to make sure that their children have food, that the parents can pay the rent to be able to keep the roof over their heads for them and their kids, and that they have got that money there for the shoes and the school trips and for fixing the car when needed—to provide the childhood that I suspect most of us in this House took for granted.

We have had debate after debate in this House about child protection, about how we, actually, as a society create the structures to support our families to be healthy, well, and violence-free so that our children grow up without fear and learn to thrive in the absence of violence. We have had a lot of discussions specifically about what kinds of mechanisms are needed from the State to intervene when things go wrong, and now, as we are getting to that point of another election, I want to reflect on how we have voted on those different topics.

It seems to me that there is a very clear pattern—that the members on this side of the House and the Green Party, I am proud to say, have voted for feeding our kids. We have voted for increasing money for our families to be able to sustain themselves and protect their kids. We have voted consistently and spoken—I say for myself, possibly too passionately—about the need for early intervention around sexual violence and domestic violence, so that we get rid of those scourges on our society and bring back safety. On this side of the House we have been consistent and we have also strongly stood up for the Māori first - whānau first approach to caring for children and have resisted heavy-handed State intervention in the absence of those basic protections of enough money and support for families.

So I think we need to look at what the results are at the moment from the Government’s approach. Is its approach working? Well, when I got up this morning and was coming in to work I was listening to the radio, and one of the stories was of a child who had been left in an Oranga Tamariki office and found by the cleaners after everyone else had gone home. To me, this feels emblematic. Ahead of the last election, this Government was told that it needed 352 more social workers to be able to meet the need it had then in responding to crises for our tamariki, and now we have 66 fewer social workers than we had then, despite the number of children being taken into care being at record levels. So is it any wonder that a child is being left in an office and forgotten about while the people whose job is to protect them are so stressed out and harried that they are unable to do the job that we profess to have given them?

The Green Party stands for our children being well fed, our families being well supported, and a society that can stand proud in our care and protection of our children.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill

Second Reading

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move, That the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill be now read a second time. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. The New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill addresses one of the more contentious land issues this Parliament has seen in recent years. This second reading of the bill marks the halfway point in its journey through this Parliament. It is a point in time that marks not only the very significant progress to date but also the beginning of an intensive period of consultation and kōrero for the Waitara hapū of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua as they consider what this bill offers them.

The Māori Affairs Committee has received over 100 submissions from throughout New Zealand and held public hearings in New Plymouth, Waitara, and Wellington. The Waitara land being dealt with by this bill has a long history and is reflective of New Zealand’s history as a nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, while you may be familiar with Waitara’s history, so much of New Zealand is not, and it is for the benefit of all New Zealand that I will place the history of Waitara on the record.

In 1860 the first shots of the New Zealand Land Wars were fired at Te Kōhia Pā, just south-west of Waitara, over the Crown’s attempted purchase of the Pekapeka Block. Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake refused to let the land at Waitara be sold, saying: “I will not permit the sale of Waitara to the Pākehā. Waitara is in my hands, I will not give it up;”. The Crown persisted in its purchase of the Pekapeka Block, despite its prior commitment not to purchase disputed land, and when it came time for the block to be surveyed, Wīremu Kīngi sent a party to prevent this, and it was at that time that martial law was declared.

Throughout this process I have reflected on the words of Wīremu Kīngi—those he made to Governor Browne about the Pekapeka Block in April of 1859, when he said: “You should remember that the Maories and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land, and therefore do not you disturb them.” However, in March 1860 the Government took military possession of the Pekapeka Block and so began the first of the New Zealand’s Land Wars. In 1861 peace was reached and an agreement to investigate the purchase of the Pekapeka Block. In the meantime, it remained occupied by military troops, and, before the investigation was completed in April 1863, Governor Grey renounced the purchase of the Pekapeka Block. Sadly, though, this did not help the people of Waitara, as it later became part of the land confiscated in 1865 for rebellion against the Crown. Over 1 million acres of Taranaki land was taken. The Crown apologised to Te Atiawa tūpuna and hapū and whānau for this dispossession in its 2014 deed of settlement.

The Crown then granted much of the confiscated land in Waitara to settlers. However, it also transferred land to the borough council and the harbour board as what is termed “endowment land”. These local bodies were transferred land in order to make an income to pay for the necessary infrastructure and services to build a town and harbour. Over time, this land was developed into leasehold land in order provide much needed housing and a reliable income stream for both the borough council and the harbour board. In the 1940s all land was consolidated into the hands of the Waitara Borough Council. The New Plymouth District Council took over the endowment land as part of the 1989 local government amalgamations. Since then, the district council has been attempting to address the historic issues in relation to this Waitara lands bill.

This bill is the council’s third attempt at resolution, after previously promoting a local bill to Parliament in 1992 and, secondly, offering the land to the Crown for inclusion in Te Ātiawa’s settlement. The revised bill now before the House is innovative, but I must mention that Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū are still working through the provisions in the bill, discussing this with their people. I look forward to seeing and hearing how that goes and am convinced that, with the leadership of the hapū wanting to lay this issue to rest and move forward into a stronger future for themselves, and with the council’s wanting to lay this issue to rest, the relationships and outcomes this bill engenders will be long-lasting and fruitful for everyone.

Firstly, the bill provides that 45 percent of the endowment land would be returned to mana whenua. The committee reflected on the concerns of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, and so it has recommended that the bill also include a new Hapū Land Fund to provide the two hapū of Waitara with the rangatiratanga to build their social and cultural base in Waitara. This Hapū Land Fund will comprise half of the proceeds that the district council receives from the leasehold land. The district council, which supports this new fund, advises me that it expects about $28 million will be available over the next 20 years for hapū to buy, develop, and maintain land in and around Waitara, such as for papakāinga.

Secondly, the committee has continued a proposal to enable leaseholders to freehold their homes. The committee heard of the issues some leaseholders have faced when their 21-year lease cycle rolls around, and their desires to achieve the Kiwi Dream by owning their own home outright. Enabling leaseholders to freehold will mean they will live in peace, quietly, on their own pieces of land.

Thirdly, the committee has ensured that all funds from the lands are spent to the benefit of Waitara through co-governance mechanisms with mana whenua. The New Plymouth District Council’s share will be spent by a co-governance board on the community well-being of Waitara. The board will have three members appointed by Te Atiawa and three members appointed by the district council. The funds will be invested into a new perpetual fund and the board will distribute the annual interest. In time, this could result in over $1 million being invested into the Waitara community each year.

The committee has made two changes to the Taranaki Regional Council share, with the support of the Taranaki Regional Council. Firstly, the committee has set aside 70 percent of the regional council’s proceeds to be dedicated to the environmental and cultural health and well-being of the Waitara River and its catchment, while 30 percent will be able to be used for regional council activities in Waitara or the lower river catchment.

Secondly, the committee has amended the bill to provide that the regional council establish a new committee with equal appointments from the various mana whenua iwi of the Waitara River and the regional council for this spending. The regional council’s funding will directly benefit the Waitara community, either through direct expenditure on the town and surrounds or through having a healthy river flowing through the town.

The New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill addresses one of the most vexed issues for one small Taranaki community, but they are issues that resonate throughout Taranaki. The Māori Affairs Committee has dedicated itself to ensuring that this bill provides benefits to all parties as much as possible, while recognising the different interests and issues that already exist.

In closing, I would like to thank the hard work of the leadership of the hapū of Waitara, the trustees of Te Atiawa, the committee’s advisers from the Office of Treaty Settlements—in particular, Nashwa Boys—and the Department of Internal Affairs. I would like to thank the committee members for their willingness to work with ideas on how to progress the bill, as well as the mayors of New Plymouth District Council—both former mayor Andrew Judd and current mayor Neil Holdom—for their vision. Thanks to their executive team—to David Cochrane and his team. I would like to the regional council, and in particular David MacLeod and chief executive Basil Chamberlain for their cooperation around changes to the bill.

Without a willingness to find solutions and progress this issue, the Waitara community would not be able to anticipate the prospects of a strong, unified, prosperous future—each on their own land, undisturbed and living in peace, in the spirit of what Wīremu Kīngi foresaw before the conflicts of the 1860s even began. I commend this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā hapū nei, ki a Ōtaraua, ki a Manukōrihi, anō hoki ki Te Iwi o Te Atiawa, oti noa, ki Te Kaunihera ā-Ro’e o Ngāmotu, ki Te Kaunihera ā-Ro’e o Taranaki anō hoki. Tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou mō ō koutou ma’i ka ma’ia mai e koutou hei whakatū i ēnei pire, i tēnei wā, nō reira, e tika hoki kia tuku mi’i atu ki a koe, Jonathan Young, te mema mō Ngāmotu, tēnei te mi’i ake ki a koe, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time it is apt that an acknowledgment is accorded to these subtribes, Ōtaraua and Manukōrihi, and to the tribe of Te Atiawa, and accordingly to the New Plymouth District Council and Taranaki Regional Council as well. I acknowledge you collectively for the work that you performed to set up these bills. Therefore, it is fitting also that I acknowledge you, Jonathan Young, the member for New Plymouth. I commend you, but at the same time all of us.]

First of all, I want to acknowledge Mr Jonathan Young for bringing this bill to the House. I want to offer my thanks that the House referred this bill to the Māori Affairs Committee following its first reading. I think that that has had a huge impact on the progress of this bill. As I stated in the first reading, this is a bill about a number of stakeholders with competing interests. I asked all of the different interested parties, through my speech, that they bring their compelling arguments to the select committee so that they could be considered by the committee, so that we could try to make this bill work.

I have to acknowledge, first of all, the New Plymouth District Council for its willingness to take a new look at the provisions of the bill. I acknowledge that it has moved considerably from where the bill was. The bill originally, as the member for New Plymouth has pointed out—the history of Waitara, and the Pekapeka Block in particular, but also the progress of this bill.

I want to acknowledge that, first of all, these submissions that were heard by the Māori Affairs Committee moved the members of the committee to take another look at the bill itself and to ask the officials to go back to the stakeholders interested in this particular bill and ask that they relook at the conditions of the bill. To that extent, I join with Mr Young and acknowledge, in particular, Nashwa Boys for her work, which I would imagine would not have been an easy task. So I want to acknowledge her input into bringing this bill to where it is today.

The district council has moved considerably, in that it has agreed to set up a hapū land fund. I think that is a significant move, because it does a couple of things: first of all, it provides the opportunity for the two hapū concerned—Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua—to be able to have what they have always wanted, except by different means. What they have always wanted is the return of their land.

This does not return all of the land; however, it does provide an opportunity. It provides an opportunity to acquire land, but it also provides the means by which that can happen. I think that ought to be recognised. I understand why the hapū are wanting to take extra time in considering it. It needs to be acknowledged in the House that they are going through their own process to get to a point of whether they agree with this bill or not. But what they do agree with is the extended opportunity to discuss this bill further. They agree with this second reading in this House. So it is incumbent upon this House to take note of that and to progress this bill to the next stage.

I want to recognise the leaseholders as well. In fact, I want to acknowledge all of those who made submissions to the select committee. I want to acknowledge the thoughtful and respectful and sometimes passionate way in which those submissions were made. As I said previously, they gave the select committee the opportunity to relook at the bill and try to find a new way forward, which we did in that select committee.

The changes have already been outlined, but I do want to talk about some of those changes. When we look at the interest of the leaseholders, there have been changes to their interest, in that they now have a longer period of time—that being extended from 12 months to 15 months in which to decide whether or not they want to take up the offer in the first instance. The great thing about that extension is that the price, or the valuation, of their particular property is fixed at the day of assent of this bill. I would think that is a good thing—although they are not locked into that either. If, for some unforeseen reason, the value of their property decreases they can opt out of that again.

It also sets up a new entity for the two hapū, so that they have the ability to purchase land. They also, within this arrangement, have a side agreement with the New Plymouth District Council that the district council will use the accumulated funds to purchase a 49 hectare block of land and—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am finding it very difficult to speak above everyone else who is speaking. I think this bill is a very important bill and I think it deserves to be heard.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a reasonable point of order, but I am sorry to interrupt the member anyway, because by a determination of the Business Committee I now call on Jono Naylor to commence his valedictory statement.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

JONO NAYLOR (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Tuatahi, he mihi ki Te Atua, nāna nei ngā mea katoa! Ngā mihi ki a koutou e te whānau, ngā mihi ki a koutou ki aku hoa o Te Whare Pāremata. He rā kia whai whakaaro ai ahau, he rā tēnei mō te whakahari, he rā anō mō te matapōuri.

[An appreciation to God firstly, as all things are His indeed. Acknowledgments to you collectively, the family, and to you my colleagues of Parliament. It is a day for me to reflect on, and this is a day for me to make merry and also to be dejected.]

Today is a day for reflection and a day for celebration, and maybe even a touch of sorrow—maybe not. Today I stand to make my 153rd, and last, speech in this debating chamber. While my 3 short years here is a mere blip compared with the other speakers whom you will hear from today, it also marks the end of 16 years as an elected member, which started when I was first elected to the Palmerston North City Council in 2001.

I want to start by acknowledging and thanking a number of people. Firstly, my family, who have believed in me, stood by me, and supported me through all of this—particularly Karen, Chloe, Luke, and George, and, more recently, Elisha and Ruamatahīapo. Thank you for sharing me with the public and for putting up with all that comes with public life. I have been privileged to do some pretty cool, significant things in my life, but there is nothing I have done, or will ever do, that is cooler or more significant than being your husband, your father, and your grandfather.

I want to thank my friends, who have believed in me, stood by me, and simply accepted me for who I am and not defined me by the titles that I have had.

Thank you also to my financial supporters and volunteers who have helped me campaign over the years and who have put up signs and delivered thousands of flyers to letterboxes. Without your help I would never have had the privilege of doing what I have done. Particularly, I want to acknowledge Trevor Day and Wendy Schultze from the local National Party for your unwavering commitment and your willingness to go beyond the call of duty.

I have also been fortunate to have had some awesome staff in my time in Parliament. Sheryll, Bernadette, Gareth, Katie, and Elliot, you have all gone the extra mile to ensure that our constituents are well cared for and to keep me on track.

Thank you also to the National Party for giving me this awesome opportunity to serve in the House of Representatives. To my caucus colleagues, it has been great to work with you and to be part of a great team that has been led by two incredible Prime Ministers in the Rt Hon Sir John Key and the Rt Hon Bill English.

I also want to acknowledge the friends whom I have made amongst other parties across the House, particularly the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Social Services Committee. We have spent a lot of time together over the past 3 years, and although we have had our challenges and the odd debate, we have also mostly kept good humour and civility, and I thank you for that.

Lastly, I want to thank those people who have made submissions to the committees that I have been on in the past 3 years. In our committees we have dealt with some pretty heavy issues, from how coronial services work, to child abuse and domestic violence, and more. Your willingness to make yourself vulnerable and tell your stories has enriched our decision making and has taken a great deal of courage.

The privilege of serving in this House has not been lost on me, and I do not believe it is ever something that we as politicians should ever take for granted. Every day I walk down these halls I marvel that a boy from Masterton who became a youth worker and did a whole bunch of other things somehow had the opportunity to be one of 120 New Zealanders who at any one time gets to hold this position. I am here not because I am anyone special, but because the people in New Zealand have seen fit to entrust their welfare and their future into our hands. We serve at their pleasure and with their best interests at heart.

The good news is that I am convinced that by far the majority of people who also serve here also hold this view. We may disagree on the finer points of what we are trying to achieve for New Zealand, but, by and large, we differ only on our methodology, rather than the outcomes we strive for. It is important that we do not lose sight of this in the heat of political debate.

Over my time here I have developed a love-hate relationship with this room. The challenge of speaking for 10 minutes on a topic you know nothing about is both exhilarating and soul-destroying all at the same time. The pointlessness of some of what we say drives me nuts, but at the same time the to and fro of debate has its enjoyment also. I have done my best to keep what I say in here good-natured and in good spirit, but I acknowledge that at times I may or may not have crossed the line. So if I have caused anyone offence in what I have said in a speech or interjected across the floor, I sincerely apologise and ask that you would look at it as over-exuberance, rather than it having any malicious intent.

I have certainly had some fun and interesting times during my brief stay in Parliament. Shortly after starting here, I was selected to represent the New Zealand Parliament at a United Nations human rights conference in the Philippines. I was not sure what to expect, to be fair, as my travelling companions, Marama Fox and Peeni Henare, were from other parties. It was all a bit of a new experience for all of us, having armed motorcyclists escorting our minivan from the airport to the hotel, but we soon got into the swing of it, and I am sure the Manila karaoke scene will never be the same again. It proved to be the beginning of an uncanny connection between the three of us, as somehow we ended up on a number of subsequent panels together over the past few years, leading to the fact that every time we turned up and the same people were there, we said we were getting the band back together.

There have also been some very odd moments, as a parliamentarian. One of the most interesting occurred during a protest at my office about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The police were concerned about safety, and so as a good employer under the new health and safety Act, I sent my staff home, and the police provided me with my very own close protection squad member. He had a Taser, but no gun.

Shortly before the protest was due to begin, someone came and sort of knocked on the window of my Parliamentary Service - approved reception window. I greeted her as I normally would and asked her whether I could help. She said: “Is this where the protest is?”. Given that I was about to be inundated with sign-waving, loud hailer - bearing protesters, it was my decision not to necessarily be quite as helpful as I might otherwise have been. I replied “What protest is that?”, and—I kid you not—her response was this: “I don’t know. They just said there was a protest at Jono Naylor’s office, so here I am.” I then decided that it was OK to be polite again, and I said to her: “Look, I’m sure that if there is a protest of any kind, it is more likely to be occurring outside the office, rather than inside the office. So if you would like to go outside and wait and see if anybody else turns up, that’ll be fine.” While I am sure that some of the protesters there may have been a little bit more informed, it did make me wonder about the validity of their message.

While I would like to say there has never been a dull moment in the past 3 years, that would not be completely honest. As crucial and as helpful as they are to the successful running of New Zealand, some pieces of legislation that I have helped progress through this House have not exactly been riveting. The Judicature Modernisation Bill, in its 1,200-page glory, and the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Torts) Bill are a couple that spring to mind. That said, if nothing else, both of those bills helped me extend my vocabulary.

However there have also been legislative and policy changes that I have been very proud to be associated with. The increases to benefits for families with children in real terms for the first time in 43 years, the introduction of the social investment strategy to ensure that more early intervention is put in place for those who face the greatest risk of long-term poor outcomes for their lives, improving our laws to deliver better outcomes for victims of domestic and sexual violence, and, of course, the Oranga Tamariki legislation to ensure that the services for the protection of our most vulnerable children is delivering real improvements to their lives are only a few of them.

It has been great to be part of a Government that has been prepared to tackle some of the difficult issues and take measures to improve people’s lives. If anyone doubts the sincerity of this, they only need to witness, as I did, the Hon Steven Joyce getting a little bit choked up when talking about how he felt seeing people talk about what a difference the changes announced in the Family Incomes Package in this year’s Budget would make to their lives.

A definite high point for me, though, in the last 3 years was one of those impromptu moments. It was an off-the-cuff speech I made on Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Bill. I had not been intending to speak on that bill, but wandered into this House, as sometimes we are wont to do as politicians, looking for somebody, and I received a text from the other side of the House, from Peeni Henare, inciting me to inject myself into the debate. I could not resist the opportunity, and I proceeded to deliver a short, heartfelt speech on the importance I believe Te Reo Māori has to my family and to New Zealand. My executive assistant the next morning suggested I post this speech on Facebook, and I went “Oh, OK then.”, and then something very interesting happened. Up until that point the greatest reach that I had ever had on Facebook was 20,000 people, which I thought was pretty cool. That is just normal for some of you, I know. But within a week this speech had somehow reached over a million people. I was overwhelmed not just by the volume of people viewing this but by the comments they were making, the gist of which from Māori was: “We can’t believe there’s a middle-aged, middle-class white guy talking about the importance of Te Reo.”

I learnt a couple of lessons at that time. The first is you cannot control social media, as ultimately it has a life of its own. The second was a reminder of the importance of middle-class, middle-aged white guys talking about issues in which we personally have no self-interest. When Pākehā talk about issues that are important to Māori, when men do not leave it up to women to talk about the issues that affect women, and when those who have never faced abuse talk about how to stop it from ever occurring, that is when we begin to see the shift in power to enable even more an equitable society. This Facebook experience reminded me of a famous quote that I had learnt during my social work degree days from a chap called Freire, who said: “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” As leaders and those with a voice in our communities, we must not lose sight of our ability to speak up for those whose voice may not otherwise be heard.

I want to conclude now with a couple of challenges. Firstly, to the media who cover Parliament, please do not lose sight of the fact that you are reporting on people who, just like you, have families and friends. Yes, we as politicians need to be accountable, and we put ourselves in the spotlight to be judged, but the crazed, salivating pack mentality that inevitably seems to come when a scandal is in the air is not particularly becoming. Please remember you are reporters here to inform the public, not New Zealand’s version of the Hollywood paparazzi and gossip columnists.

To my colleagues and friends of this House, I salute you. This is a tough gig. It takes amazing commitment, character, and resolve to do it well. Never lose sight of who you are, never lose sight of the importance of your family and friends, and never lose sight of the reason you came here. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui—be strong, be steadfast, be willing.

And with those final words, Mr Speaker, I bid you and this House farewell. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa, e noho rā.

[Applause]

Waiata

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have to say that I never thought, sitting in Mike Moore’s home at the age of 14 signing up as a member of the Labour Party, that some 33 years later, at the age of 47, I would be standing in the House—and, of course, sitting next to the Labour icon whom we call “Araldite”, the Hon Annette King, whom we honour tomorrow—making this valedictory speech, having had the privilege of serving 18 years as a member of Parliament. I served 18 years, 9 years of which were with the privilege of being in Government, including 3 years as a Cabinet Minister, holding eight ministerial portfolios; I spent 9 years in Opposition, including 6 years as a front-bencher; and, especially, I had 12 years representing the wonderful people of the Waimakariri electorate. To quote an old mate, every day has been an honour and every hour has been a privilege in this place. There is no higher honour, I think, in a democracy than to be elected to by your people to serve your country, and I thank the people and the Labour Party for giving me that opportunity.

My political career has not been without the odd bit of controversy. Those who have been around will remember the stoush in 1993 between Mike Moore and Helen Clark for the leadership of my venerable party. Of course, I was, and I remain, in the Mike Moore camp, so it would be fair to say that when I was nominated for selection for the seat of Waimakariri in 1999, things got a tad interesting. The selection meeting lasted until about 1.30 in the morning—which is pretty traditional for Labour Party selections—but somehow I prevailed. The following Tuesday, the Labour caucus met, and the then party president, Bob Harvey, who had presided over the selection, was asked to make a report on it. According to my old mate, the former MP George Hawkins—who could not be here today—Bob’s report was short but to the point: “Well, I tried. I really did try. I gave it my best shot, but he ended up the democratically selected candidate for Waimakariri.”

Suffice it to say, all wounds have long since healed, and it was an honour to serve in Helen Clark’s Government and to be appointed to work with her as a Minister. She is a true friend and a true stateswoman for New Zealand.

The people of the Waimakariri electorate are wonderful souls, and I relished representing them. I am indebted to them for their wisdom, their friendship, and their generosity.

In fact, on one occasion, I do recall vividly their generosity. As a newly minted candidate in 1999, I was doorknocking in a community called Pines Beach—a fantastic little community. I knocked on a door, and this young bloke appeared in nothing at all but his underwear, looking a bit worse for wear too, I have got to say. I said “Look, I’m the Labour guy.”, and he said: “Oh yeah, I know who you are. You’ve got my vote. Don’t worry about it. Now, you fellows have to raise money, don’t you?”. I said “Yeah, we do.”, and he said: “Hang on, I’ve got a donation for you.”

He disappeared into the house, came back, and when he arrived he had a packet of cigarette papers in one hand and a small bag of marijuana in the other. He then proceeded to advise me on how to get as many joints as possible out of a bag of marijuana so as to maximise the revenue for my campaign. Being prudent, I thanked him very much for his kind offer, thanked him for his vote, pointed him in the direction of his nearest polling place, and got the hell out of there as fast as I could.

I have to say that as a newly elected member of Parliament, and this will not surprise many, I did relish the debate, the hand-to-hand combat, and the humour—I will miss it—in this place. Just to reinforce that to the public mind, MPs young and old can be disrespectful and brash, I recall the day that my old sparring partner and fellow St Bede’s College old boy, Gerry Brownlee—who would be deeply offended if I did not mention him in my speech—and I had exchanged some pleasantries in the Chamber. Gerry had made a point of making an admiring comment that I was follicly challenged. I think his words were: “That is the worst comb-over I have ever seen in my life.” I then looked to return fire. At one point Gerry said to me: “Clayton, do you know that you are sitting in the same seat that I first sat in when I was elected?”. I replied: “Yeah, I know.” He looked a bit stunned, and he said: “How did you know that?”. I said: “Well, it’s easy, mate. The springs have gone.” Sadly, none of that humour made it into Hansard—which we have corrected today.

But I do want to recall, on a serious note—because it is true that Gerry and I had our moments in this place and we disagreed, and at times we disagreed on policy issues intently. But I say this: I do admire the tenacity and commitment that he showed in his role as earthquake recovery Minister for the great province that we love and the people of Canterbury.

It was an honour to serve as a Cabinet Minister, not for the title and what comes with the office, but to have the power to make a positive change. I am proud of the reforms I have put in place in respect of real estate, property law, the licensing of builders and building practitioners to try to get the cowboys out of the construction sector, the provision of low-cost alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for those involved in leaky-home cases, the JP reforms, and the passage and reforms to the Immigration Act, and I am proud of having got the $190 million business case over the line for the Eden Park flagship venue for the Rugby World Cup.

But it is not only in Government that you can make a positive contribution. Sure, it is a fact that in Opposition you do not have any real power, but you have the power to cajole, you have the power to apply pressure, and, most importantly, you never give up. I am proud of the 2-year campaign I waged as State-owned enterprises spokesman, with the support of West Coast - Tasman MP and my good mate, Damien “Chainsaw” O’Connor, to expose the mismanagement and incompetence that led to the collapse of a once export award - winning company, Solid Energy. Sadly, the only people who paid the price for that fiasco and lost their livelihoods and jobs were the folks who literally worked at the coalface.

The Canterbury earthquakes, like they did for so many people, had a profound and lasting effect on me. I had never seen human tragedy on a scale such as this, and the layers of the suffering were deep and complex. The mental and emotional suffering went on and on for the weeks and months and years that followed, and for some in our community it continues today—especially the kids.

I am proud of the work that we did, and I say “we” because I include all Canterbury colleagues and those from other regions, from all political parties. We saved lives, and I do not mean in the initial physical aftermath of the tragic quakes. The credit for that amazing work, of course, resides alone with those amazing emergency responders, who put their lives on the line for others. What I mean is that in the months and years after, we collectively dealt with thousands of folks whose lives were torn apart, who were emotionally and mentally on the brink, and who were staring into the abyss, and we helped them. We battled insurance companies, we pressured the bureaucracy, and, yes, at times, we utilised the media to make the public case. We, collectively—all members of Parliament—hauled those folks back from the brink and got them their lives back. They are now smiling. Their kids are smiling. They are in decent homes. They have got their lives back. I think that is at the very essence of the real work of members of Parliament, which is something the media and some commentators forget.

I am proud that throughout that period I was the Labour Opposition earthquake recovery spokesman. I did not exploit the situation by politicising it, despite the demands of some that I should, and the characterisation by others that vigorous public advocacy for earthquake victims via the media was in some way political.

I witnessed many things I will never forget—some disturbing, but many inspiring—from the spontaneous formation of the Rangiora Express, established by Jayne and Mike Rattray, who formed their own private air force and flew food by helicopter to isolated parts of Christchurch for weeks, to the incredible generosity of people like Dave Pilkington. Dave is a Belfast guy. Kaiapoi had established during the earthquakes an emergency food bank, and the call went out for food because stocks were low. Dave ran a pack-house for vegetables—he owned his business—and I rang him up and I said we needed help. In the typical fashion, the reply was “Tell me what you need.”, and then a truck arrived full of fresh vegetables. What I did not know at the time was that Dave, of course, did not own the vegetables, but he had packed them for other businesses. But the truck came, none the less, and its contents had been paid for personally by Dave Pilkington.

I have always tried to be an advocate for business and industry because, at its core, it is the commercial sector that creates jobs and gives opportunities for people to better their lives. But to grow and develop, businesses require greater access to global markets. We need the world; it does not necessarily need us.

It is no secret that I have always been, and remain, a strident supporter of free trade. It is a fact—undisputed—that in the last 50-plus years, thanks to open markets, more people have been lifted out of poverty than in any time in our history. It is a fact that as developing countries gain access to global markets, living standards, environmental standards, and labour standards are increased, and the institutions that encourage investment in those countries are built.

I remain a supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I note that the argument is made that in signing that agreement, New Zealand would give up part of its sovereignty. I respect that view. But the same is true when we sign any international agreement, whether it be the Paris climate change treaty, International Labour Organization agreements, or UN protocols. In each case, we as a nation agree that in giving up certain sovereign rights, we are attempting to make the world a better place through collective action.

This House has produced many a fantastic and incredible trade Minister, from Brian Talboys to Joe Walding, Mike Moore, Philip Burdon, Jim Sutton, and Phil Goff, to name but a few. Each has built on the work of the others to advance New Zealand’s global interests in a bipartisan way. We must move back to a cross-party consensus on international trade. Stakeholders in our community must be engaged with. They must be brought into the discussion and not shut out, as they have been in the recent past, because fear is a creation of the unknown. Trade policy must last well beyond a 3-year electoral cycle, but, colleagues, to do that, it requires movement from both major political parties—Labour and National.

I want to pay tribute and thank a number people who have been unwavering supporters of mine but who have also had a profound influence on my life. To the people of Waimakariri, thank you for allowing me to represent you for four terms. I loved every minute of it. Waimakariri is like a little slice of New Zealand. It is a strong and generous community that has been through so much in recent years, but it has bounced back. Its enthusiasm is infectious.

To my electorate team and to my committee members—my members are so ably led by Sally Thompson, who is here today—thank you. Sally may hold the record for being the longest-serving committee chair in Labour history. My team were loyal to a fault—hardened campaign battlers who relished an election fight. They organised, raised money, and campaigned without fuss or glamour—they just got stuck in. I thank them for their commitment, their support, and their friendship, which I will never forget.

To my local staff, both past and present, especially Emma, Linda, Juliet, Heather, and Nelly—you are world-class. Our staff, after all, are at the front line when it comes to assisting local people. They are the unsung heroes every day, as they see the heartache and deal with the frustration of those who need help. It takes a dedicated kind of person to deal with casework, especially during the years of earthquake recovery.

To my current local staffer, Donna Dawber, I give a special note of thanks. You are not only a fantastic and highly respected staff member but you are a close mate. Only you and I know the sacrifices you made personally for the job and to support me, and I thank you so much.

To my then ministerial staff and the public servants I have had the privilege to work with, thanks for your professionalism, for your judgment, for your advice, and for always telling me the truth and challenging my thinking without fear or favour. You all worked unbelievably hard to support me and to implement the then Government’s programme. But, let us be honest, you also played hard as well, and in some ways I still remember those very, very long parties. No Minister has had a better staff.

To my parliamentary staff past and present—Willy, Tim, Lorraine, Ben, Steph, Maryanne, and Maylene—I say thanks for the endless hours and for coping with the ever-changing schedule, and for the sheer hard grind that is Parliament. It does take a special set of skills to cover up for my mistakes. To my—[Interruption] I knew that would get ’em. To my researchers, Richard and Corrine, and my media staff at the time, Miles and John, I say you are all exceptional political hunter-gatherers.

A note to all the parliamentary staff, security, messengers, caterers, cleaners, travel folk, the library—that wonderful institution we have—and its researchers, the Office of the Clerk, and all staff. I thank you for the support you gave me.

To my mother and father, Barbara and Rex, thanks for all of your love and support. I would not be standing here today had it not been for the sacrifices you both made. It was the two of you who taught me the values that I have tried to live by—thank you.

Also, thanks to Jane’s parents, Don and Barbara, who I think were not too sure about their daughter’s judgment—[Interruption]—yeah, I knew that would get a laugh, too—or taste in men when she first brought this MP home to meet them. Thanks for supporting me, and for being there for Jane on the many, many occasions when I could not be.

To Mike and Yvonne Moore, who are my other family and my closest friends—Mike and Yvonne could not be here today, but I know that they are watching from home. I know—and I can bet the house on this—that I will get a call from Mike at the conclusion of this speech with a gentle critique and some ideas to convey. Too late—I have gone.

It is no secret that Mike has had a profound impact and influence on my life as a mate and as a mentor. A journalist once wrote—when I was first selected as a candidate—that I even looked like Mike. I reminded that misguided soul that at that time, at least, I was thinner and had more hair. Some have even speculated that Mike wrote many of my speeches—a notion that I suspect he would still argue was legally actionable, given some of the questionable and varying quality of my contributions over the years.

It was an honour to work for him when he was a Minister, when he was a Prime Minister—and I remember those glorious 8 weeks like they were yesterday; I could tell you a few things, Jacinda—and when he was leader of the Labour Party. The 1993 campaign was incredible and is etched into my memory, as it is for the three fellow “Beagle Boys”, who sit in the gallery. They are Peter, Sue—well Sue is an honorary one—and Barry. It is worth noting that the 1993 election result was the biggest increase in seats in Labour history, apart from the 1935 landslide.

It was incredible to watch Mike’s determination and sheer grit as he campaigned and prevailed to become Director-General of the World Trade Organization, the highest international office ever attained by a New Zealander. We all remain so proud of his work on behalf of New Zealand as Ambassador to the United States. He was, indeed, a worthy recipient of the Order of New Zealand. I want to place on record my thanks to former Prime Ministers Dame Jenny Shipley and Sir John Key, and the then foreign Minister Murray McCully for recognising and utilising Mike’s energy and talents on behalf of our country. I lament the fact that my own political tribe never did the same when in Government.

Mike has always stood up for the Kiwi battlers. With his trademark enthusiasm, his relentless energy, and his fundamental belief in Labour values, he has always been, and will remain, an inspiration to me. An incredible legacy from a Kawakawa boy who left school at 15—he was a Labour leader, a Labour hero, a true patriot, and the ultimate true believer. I owe him a debt I can never repay.

Most importantly, my thanks go to Jane. My darling Jane—the love of my life—thank you for all your unwavering support, in good times and in bad. Thank you for your advice and your good humour. Thanks for your forgiveness for all those absences and all those jobs at home that never got done. Thank you for the unseen work you did in our community, and the sacrifices you made in support of my career. You are always a ray of sunshine, even in the darkest moments.

To the Labour Party—the members, the supporters, and the colleagues—thank you for giving me the opportunity to be part of an incredible movement. The Labour Party’s greatest strength throughout its history is its ability to constantly evolve and recognise and address the changing needs and priorities of our community.

My late grandfather was Labour to his bones. He started life working at Millar’s bakehouse in Invercargill. Some years later, he saved enough money to buy a barber shop. He became a business person. His mates thought that given he had changed jobs from being a worker to becoming a boss, that would mean he would be a Tory—a National Party supporter. They thought he would change sides. Not so. Yes, he worried less about overtime and wage rates, and more about depreciation and tax and staff and making a business profitable. In essence, his priorities had changed, but his values had not. He stayed loyal to Labour because it was Labour that evolved with him, with new policy and new vision that recognised his needs.

From time to time in its history, my beloved Labour Party has stopped evolving, and when that happens, people become disengaged and the party seems distant from them. This is something that we, as a movement, must guard constantly against. Jacinda, you have hit the restart button on the evolution of our party. You have turbo-boosted it, and long may that continue.

I will miss this place and, if I am honest, I will, as I have said, miss the day-to-day political combat. Politics is infectious. It gets in your blood. It is like cocaine, as it is addictive.

I am reminded of the words of the infamous Graham Richardson—who, for those who do not know, was Bob Hawke’s Minister for Social Security in the 1980s—when he described the excitement of politics as being better than sex and almost as good as a big feed. I do not agree with Richardson’s extreme notion—although Trevor Mallard may; I am not sure—nor will I comment on its component parts, but it does show that from time to time our Australian cousins can be slightly misguided.

I will treasure the friendships I have made across the House. Contrary to popular belief, we as MPs may argue with each other—in fact, that is actually what we get paid to do; to tease out the good ideas and challenge the status quo for the good of our country—but we do not hate each other. This Chamber is like a boxing ring. This is the “Circus Maximus”. You slug it out with your opponents, and then you have a beer with them afterwards—this is a good thing.

I know, like other former members, that once I leave this place I will suddenly, as if by some miracle, have all the answers to the great problems and issues that eluded me when I was here. And I know that my Labour colleagues, especially Kris Faafoi and Megan Woods, are looking forward to me inflicting those views on them, year after year after year.

To all colleagues on all sides, I wish you well.

To Jacinda and Kelvin, you carry the hopes and dreams of so many with you, and that is a heavy challenge to bear. You have energised our party and this campaign. The people of New Zealand are sitting up and taking notice. No longer can we be called old and grey—apart from me. Your enthusiasm has become infectious, and I would wager to say it is making some of our political opponents look like the last committee meeting at the Kremlin before the Berlin Wall came down.

I make a prediction here tonight. I am no soothsayer, but I reckon we are going to go up in the polls, and up in the polls substantially. Jacinda, I look forward to 24 September, when you will change our party’s tagline from “Let’s do this” to “We’ve done it”.

I wish you all the best. I am now out of here.

[Applause]

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): On the day that I stepped down as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I received an email from a person who had been in my class at school, remarking that it was a wonderful thing that someone could come from Arapohue School and Dargaville High School and go on to serve in the New Zealand Parliament and as New Zealand’s foreign Minister. In the small farming community in which I grew up, the notion of a university education for less than stellar students like myself was regarded as fanciful and any idea of being elected to the Parliament absurd. So as I come to the end of a 30-year term in this Parliament, including a lengthy period as a Minister of the Crown, it is very hard to convey how incredibly fortunate I feel to have had the opportunities that have come my way.

We had lost the East Coast Bays seat for the previous three elections before I won it in 1987, with the princely majority of 311 votes. I leave Parliament having achieved a majority of 15,000. Today I want to record my enormous appreciation to the people of East Coast Bays for the confidence and support given to me over 10 elections and for the great honour and privilege of serving as the member for East Coast Bays for 30 years.

I give my sincere thanks to the hard-working East Coast Bays electorate team, who over the years made it possible for me to win and then consolidate a previously marginal seat. Many of them are here today. Many of them have worked for me throughout those 30 years, and I am truly grateful to them. I thank the many staff members and officials who have kept me in business and the close friends and family who have supported me.

I want to extend my best wishes to Prime Minister Bill English and Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett and the about-to-be former colleagues of mine. New Zealand today is in better shape than virtually any country of our type in the world. Occasionally in the past this country has got some runs on the board but then lost its focus. You have a unique opportunity to build on a tremendous base, and you have my best wishes.

When Maurice Williamson and I were first elected to this Parliament it was a very different place, especially prior to the introduction of MMP in 1996. The combination of the need to be personally present to cast a vote in the interminable hours of urgency made this a much more intimate and sociable place. Cast-iron discipline was required from the whips, with any absence requiring a pair from the other side.

Back in the late 1980s Maurice Williamson, Winston Peters, Ross Meurant, and I determined that it would be logistically possible to depart towards the end of question time, attend the North Harbour - Wellington rugby match at Athletic Park, and return before the end of the general debate, with no risk of a vote being called or our absence being noted. Whether it was a result of a leak or the obvious difficulty Mr Peters had with the notion of remaining inconspicuous, we returned to find a very angry chief whip, who instituted formal disciplinary proceedings and required us to sit through an hour of carefully choreographed speeches about loyalty, teamwork, and commitment at the following caucus.

The election of the Bolger Government in 1990, followed by the “mother of all Budgets”, seared some harsh political messages into our hides. Having been elected with 48 percent of the vote in 1990, fewer than 12 months later some polls were placing us as low as 19 percent. It was in this grim climate in October 1991 that I received an early morning call from the Prime Minister’s senior private secretary, who advised that the Prime Minister wanted to see me. Convinced that this was to be yet another of the disciplinary discussions that were then a regular feature of my parliamentary timetable, I not very politely declined.

Eventually the senior private secretary convinced me that it would be very much in my interests to get my useless carcass up to the Prime Minister’s office right now. So Jim Bolger informed me bluntly that he was making me the Minister of Customs but that would not make me very busy, and that he had decided, despite our political predicament, that he was going to win the next election, that I was going to help him, and that we would discuss it on a later occasion. We never did discuss it later, but I did find myself fairly quickly immersed in the political management machinery of the place, a role I came to play for many years.

I acquired a great respect for Jim Bolger. I developed an excellent working relationship with him and gained valuable experience in dealing with the intractable political challenges at the business end of the Government. In both Government and Opposition, right through until 2008, I was involved in one way or another under five leaders in the deeply unglamorous, even more unpopular, and extraordinarily difficult area of political management.

At about this period of my career, in which I am told I acquired the nickname “the Black Prince”, a good number of very colourful, mostly unflattering things, had been written and said by political opponents and media commentators alike, for which I am sure they are now all deeply remorseful. I take this opportunity today of thanking them all for their vigorous efforts to enhance my notoriety. They had made me appear very much more effective than I really had been and certainly much more interesting. It was during this period that I ran a weekly blog, McCully.co, which was widely read for its intellectual rigour and dispassionate analysis of important political affairs—an option for the future, perhaps, if nothing else works out.

In 2008 the decision was made by John Key, looking towards the election later that year, that I was to move seriously into the area of foreign policy. Members will recall that the right honourable, now knighted, former Prime Minister had a wonderful capacity for lofty Shakespearean prose. In early 2008, addressing me in such terms, he said: “My little friend, there is one portfolio where those guys can hand me my ass, and that’s foreign policy. I want you to make sure they don’t.” Ha, ha! Never before or since has the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs been so graciously bestowed. Ha, ha!

I think most people who come into this place bring an ambition to at some stage play a serious role in a Government that they can be truly proud of. In that respect, I regard myself as among the truly fortunate. For 8 years I had the enormous privilege of serving as Minister of Foreign Affairs under New Zealand’s greatest Prime Minister of modern times and of serving as a member of what he called his “Kitchen Cabinet”.

As I have said on many occasions, in any Government the real foreign Minister is always the Prime Minister. Regardless of geographical location, time zone, or any other considerations, Prime Ministers and foreign Ministers must always be on the same page. To be otherwise is to confuse other Governments and international agencies and the vast bureaucracies they retain to analyse every word or nuance, not to mention to provide fodder for troublemaking political opponents and commentators. I am pleased to say that in 8 years there was not one occasion on which there was daylight between John Key and myself. But much more important was the fact that while former Prime Minister Key quickly demonstrated a complete mastery of international relations at the highest level, he also bestowed the huge level of trust and confidence in his foreign Minister that is critical to making that role effective in its own right.

These were an important 8 years for New Zealand’s role in the world. We managed, after 30 long years, to bring about a normalisation of New Zealand’s relationship with the United States while maintaining our nuclear-free legislation, and remaining outside of ANZUS. Our relationship with China was taken to a new level, with exports multiplying by 500 percent, requiring careful management of a dynamic and complex diplomatic relationship, as well as one or two private sector challenges along the way. We made major progress with other non-traditional relationships in ASEAN, Latin America, and the Gulf States. We managed to break through a longstanding blockage in the relationship with the European Union, and I am especially proud of the way in which we stepped up to deal with our role and responsibilities in the Pacific.

New Zealand’s campaign for election to the UN Security Council in 2014 was unlike any other diplomatic challenge. You see, foreign ministries from all nations have this wonderful capacity to record every meeting as a diplomatic success. But the problem with the UN Security Council election is that one day the numbers go up on a board in New York, and the numbers do not lie.

The fact that three quarters of the countries in the world voted for New Zealand on the first ballot, leaving heavyweights Spain and Turkey to fight out the subsequent ballots, says something that is both totally objective and massively positive about our standing in world affairs. I am extremely proud of the way that New Zealand conducted itself during our 2-year term on the Security Council. We were diligent, fair-minded, consistent, and prepared to call out poor conduct wherever we saw it, even from our friends. I take this opportunity to thank the many hard-working and talented foreign affairs staff who over 8½ years supported and collaborated with me in places all around the globe.

I also served for many years as Minister for Sport and Recreation, and more briefly as Minister for the America’s Cup in 1999 and Minister for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The hosting of the America’s Cup in 1999 involved close collaboration with Sir Peter Blake and his team. Sir Peter’s habitual question “Will it make the boat go faster?” was the greatest possible lesson on focus and a question I was to ask myself many times subsequently, when trying to decide which fights were worth having.

The whingers and whiners were out in force before that event—New Zealanders were not going to be interested in a rich man’s sport, all the cafes and restaurants in the Viaduct Basin would go broke as soon as the event was over, and it was therefore a waste of public money, and so on. But, of course, New Zealanders embraced the event in droves. The hospitality sector in the Viaduct Basin seemed to be just keeping its head above water last time I checked, and, of course, the economic and profile benefits to New Zealand were huge. The same will be the case in 2021. It is my sincere hope that, rather than pandering to the whingers and whiners, both Auckland and central government authorities will recognise the huge opportunity that is coming our way and invest wisely and strategically in maximising the undoubted benefits.

The Rugby World Cup 2011 was as complex as it was huge. It was one of the great thrills of my time in politics to be given the opportunity to play a role in something so large that gave so much pleasure to so many New Zealanders and banked so much economic benefit along the way. It also gave me an opportunity to work alongside some highly talented and very committed New Zealanders, many of whom remain my close friends today. I hope those responsible are thinking carefully about our next bid to host this event, because surely we must.

There is one outstanding Rugby World Cup matter that I do want to touch on briefly. In the lead up to the event, I had occasion to host a dinner for all of the members of the International Rugby Board. Because they were official guests of the New Zealand Government, the Department of Internal Affairs was supposed to have arranged for payment of the account, but, for some reason best known to itself, had not. So to avoid any embarrassment at the end of the evening, the bill was quietly charged to my office credit card. Even though we were reimbursed the next day, the subsequent release of my credit card receipts containing five bottles of Ata Rangi pinot noir at $185 a bottle attracted an unhealthy and, it would be fair to say, universally negative interest from the nation’s media. To make matters significantly worse, for weeks afterwards, every time I attended a public occasion addressed by the then Prime Minister, he would draw attention to my presence and to my expensive taste in pinot noir.

It is a sad comment on the state of investigative journalism in this country that not one media outlet asked such blindingly obvious questions as: does the Minister for the Rugby World Cup drink pinot noir? Did the Prime Minister attend this dinner? Does the Prime Minister drink pinot noir? Now, I can no longer recall the answers to any of these questions, but I do recall clearly that I lamented the very poor state of our investigative media at the time.

Of course, I was to enjoy my own career as an international athlete while in Parliament as a founder member, with Trevor Mallard and Damien O’Connor of the Parliamentary Rugby Team.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Bill English.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: And yes, the right honourable Prime Minister as well. Our first coach, John Hart, rode into his All Blacks coaching job on the strength of our success. His successor, Richie Guy, neatly summed up my prowess when planning one of our Parliamentary Rugby World Cup campaigns when he said: “We can win this competition if we use our speed and skill out in the backs. McCully, you are playing in the forwards.”

In 2009 we started to put in place some changes to both the structure and funding of High Performance Sport with the goal of making New Zealand, on a per capita basis, one of the top sporting nations in the world. Too many New Zealanders fail to understand the huge benefits our top athletes bring to our brand and profile in a country that produces and exports food. And by using our word-class athletes as role models we have a much greater chance of motivating our young people to play sport and live healthier lives. The decision to give High Performance Sport its own identity recognised that being world class requires a level of focus and resourcing that is different. We decided to focus resources at that level in the sports where we had a competitive advantage, creating a hothouse environment for our top athletes, coaches, and staff.

In both the 2012 and 2016 Olympics our targets were exceeded, but the real test comes in 2020 when the true benefits of this programme will flow through. Provided we stay on track, we will be able to look back on this as a critical formative period in our evolution as one of the world’s most successful Olympic nations.

When the Prime Minister farewelled me from Cabinet back in May with some uncharacteristically generous remarks, he said that, on his research, I had served for longer as a Minister in National Governments than anyone other than the late Sir Brian Talboys. I had never thought about that statistic, but I went away and checked, and I think the Prime Minister was probably correct.

With the indulgence of the House, I want to offer, therefore, one or two thoughts as I depart this institution.

Hon Member: Oh, this’ll take a while.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Ha! First, some personal advice: always keep an open mind about people. When some financial whiz-kid who gets elected in your neighbouring electorate irritates the management and you are asked to take him out behind the woodshed for a chat, always leave room for the possibility he might end up being your boss for 8 years. Ha, ha! And when some overconfident young woman marches into your electorate office, interviews you, and then instructs you to hire her on the spot, before you tell her to get lost, always leave room for the possibility that she might end up being your Deputy Prime Minister. Ha, ha!

We hear a great deal about how technology is changing and will continue to change our lives, but we think too little about how New Zealand’s international interests have changed and will continue to change, and about the need to configure our institutions and polices so that they reflect our future interests, rather than our past. I grew up in a New Zealand that saw itself as an offshore farm for Great Britain. When the UK joined Europe, we thought we were the unluckiest people in the world, and senior Ministers lobbied for years to maintain access to the European markets that took the bulk of our goods.

Today we are one of the truly lucky countries, camped on the rim of the Asia-Pacific region that will be the powerhouse of world economic growth for as far ahead as we can see. Today our exports to China are roughly equal to our exports to Australia, which is traditionally our largest market. But in the next 5 or 6 years our trade with China will be 50 percent bigger than with any other country. And, like any sensible business that does not want to be too dependent upon one customer, we will be trying to balance that growth with new markets in Asia, the Gulf States, and Africa. We have been slow to adapt from a world where we can do business inside our comfort zone with people who speak the same language and have similar history, values, and systems of Government to one in which a substantial part of our business is with countries that do not. But the next decade or two will see an overwhelming proportion of our trade conducted with nations that are outside that traditional comfort zone.

The same is true in relation to our security and defence, where the simple alliance arrangements that defined our interests for most of the last century have given way to an independent foreign policy, a complex and evolving series of regional dialogues, and a backdrop of major shifts in international power structures. Yet statistics for the study of foreign languages in this country remain truly dismal, and even important foreign policy issues are denied media space by editors besotted with the eating habits of reality TV stars, their medical ailments, wardrobe malfunctions, and revolving love interests. Increasingly, the pursuit of this country’s economic and security interests will take us outside the comfort zone that history has bequeathed us, requiring a much greater investment of our time, our interests, and our skills.

Those who have worked with me will know that I am not a great fan of multilateral institutions, but we must persevere with bodies like the United Nations, not because they are good but because they will get a great deal worse if countries like New Zealand do not play their part. Good international rules and effective international institutions are important for countries like ours. The alternative is to live in a world where the big guys always win and the little guys always lose. But New Zealand needs to remain a forceful advocate for UN reform. Last year the international community spent US$16 billion on providing humanitarian support for victims of conflict and another US$9 billion on UN peacekeeping operations. The world’s capacity to create human misery through conflict now greatly exceeds its capacity to prevent or resolve it or its willingness to meet the growing humanitarian cost. That simply has to change.

I previously described our work in the Pacific, in my time as foreign Minister, as both the most challenging and satisfying part of the job. We are a small player in international affairs, but we are a large and important player in the Pacific, and we are making a difference. New Zealand leadership has been the key to bringing over $2 billion to projects that are shifting the region from its heavy dependence on fossil fuels for electricity to renewable energy, with huge environmental and economic benefits. Many islands that were 100 percent dependent on expensive diesel for electricity generation are now 100 percent powered by renewables.

In the fisheries sector we have made bold progress in helping the region move its largest economic asset, a $3 billion-a-year tuna fishery, towards sustainable management and towards achieving a significantly greater return for its owners. We are playing an important role in the growing success story that is the Pacific tourism industry, again creating sustainable economic benefits from the region’s natural resources. I greatly value the many friendships I have been fortunate to make around the Pacific, and my retirement plans include a continuing involvement in the region.

The great temptation in this institution is to simply go along for the ride, to spend 3 years getting elected for another 3 years. I came here 30 years ago to make a difference. This is a tough place, and I have spent the greater part of those 30 years at the tougher end of it. I have tried to get things done, and sometimes that has not made it easy for colleagues, friends, and family, but I could never really see the point in being here if I was not going to move the furniture around a bit. Thank you for putting up with me for so long. It has been a hell of a ride.

[Applause]

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): This is the hardest speech that I am ever going to make in this place, because I have been given a very stern warning from foreign affairs that I am now a diplomat and that I have got to not do any of the things that can cause trouble. When I told that to Sir John Key a few hours ago, he said: “Well, given you never listened to my advice like that for 10 years, why the bloody hell would you listen to them?”. But I am going to try to be diplomatic. I am going to try to make sure that instead of calling somebody a wanker, I will call them an owner-operator, because that is the diplomatic way to go these days. I do know that what I am about to say is irrelevant to most of you, because I was told by my dad once that no matter how great your greatest high or how deep your deepest low, there are over 1.6 billion Chinese people who could not give a toss. I think that puts everything into a true prospective.

In the next 20 minutes or so, I am going to wax lyrical about my 30 years in this place and how things have changed so dramatically, cover a few achievements—but not too many to bore you—canvass a couple of the highs, and sort of steer clear of a couple of the really deep lows that got really quite bad, make an apology or two, and, finally, pose that real question that I think we should all pose: did I make a difference?

So, first of all, a few tributes—and these are really important. I want to pay a tribute to my mum, Noreen, who is 95 years old, lives in her own house in Matamata, and will be watching this. She is a lady who just goes about her daily life, will not go into an institution, and is as sharp as a brain, and she calls me up and tells me that I am a completely useless sod when I do not agree with things she said. Mum, you have been amazing. I will be very careful to not to use something that my nephew used at his mother’s funeral—my sister’s funeral. He said: “Mum, you’re the greatest mum I’ve ever had.” I think I have got to be very, very careful not to fall into that trap.

My late father, Rex, served in the Battle of the River Plate, which is mentioned up on the wall over there, on the Achilles along with his brother. We grew up in Matamata on a farm, and they were great parents, and instilled they what I still think are completely, really top-notch values. That is all you can expect as to where you go from there.

To my wife, Raewyn—Raewyn up the back there—of 41 long-suffering years: I think the reason we have lasted 41 years is that I leave for Wellington every Tuesday and come back every Friday. She is really pleased to see me when I come home on Friday, and she is even more pleased to see me leaving on the Tuesday. So I think that is what has worked.

I have got three kids. They are all adopted, so they are lucky not to get the genes. They are really going to have a chance in life of being somebody. My son, Simon, right up in the front there, is an amazing guy. He is a wordsmith—I think he came second in the world in the Cambridge English exams—and he is absolutely worthwhile employing if you are looking for someone to be a wordsmith. He actually knows where a few dead bodies are buried as well.

Now, there are a couple of family members who are not here, so I am going to try to do something. You will know that I have always been famous for doing PowerPoints. They tell me that the parliamentary cameras can do this—the twins. I have twins, a boy and a girl. This picture is of Connor, my twin son. He is currently on a tennis scholarship to the University of South Carolina. He is simply, as you will hopefully see by this one, if we can flick it in, just an amazing tennis player. So, Connor, I am really proud of you as well.

My daughter Brittany is a make-up artist and thinks she is pretty cool, and she is—just amazing. There is one more photo clip, and then I will do my dogs. If I thought my kids were fantastic, have a look at these two dogs. They are Waffles and Pebbles. If I am ever grumpy or hungover in the morning when I wake up, that is what I wake up to look at.

OK, a couple of secretaries—I have been here for 30 years and I think I have got the record for this. I have had the same electorate secretary for the entire 30 years, Carla. Carla is up the back of the gallery—Carla Mikkelson; just amazing. I tell you what—30 years. I mean, you get less for murder, Carla. There have been times when I have arrived at the office and she has just stared at me and gone: “Oh my God! What have you done now?”. Another amazing secretary here in Parliament is Bridie Cooper, up there in the gallery. She was Bridie Wilkinson for most of her life, and got married a couple of years ago. Bridie has just been the—I have worked for her for 30 years. To have one secretary in Wellington and one secretary in Auckland for 30 years means I cannot be as big a bastard as I have been accused of being in the media from time to time.

There are a couple of friends here whom I want to pay tribute to. John Slater—where are you hiding? I saw you over there—no, John Slater is up in the gallery. John Slater is the past-president of the National Party. We used to go out canvassing together many, many years ago. One day we decided: “Let’s have a crack at taking over this party.” He got to be the president of the party and I got to be a front-bench Minister, so that was not too bad. Peter Martin, just up there behind the pole, is the electorate chairman in Pakuranga, and what an absolute stalwart he has been in the electorate for very many, many years.

I am reminded of how important it is to get name recognition in the electorate. Before I got elected the first time, I was working hard, because Labour was hellishly popular in 1987 and I was not sure I could win the seat. I did everything I could. A guy came to see me and said: “I need your help.” I put hours and hours of work into it, and I thought “I’ve got him. He’s going to be a voter for me.” And then he dropped a big envelope around at my house that night, and it was addressed to Mr William Morrison. If you know, Morrison was the actual member of Parliament at the time, and William Morrison was not going to cut it when he went to vote. To a couple of other close friends from Air New Zealand days—Ian Hambly, Alan Gaskin: you guys, we have had an amazing ride through life, and it has been fun.

There is a couple up here I want to point out—Ron and Jane Woodrow. These people are Wellingtonians who have provided a refuge that I could run to and hide when anything went wrong, and I think that was just about every week at one point. Jane would always cook the most amazing meals and Ron would always have the ideas about how to solve the world. Ron shares with me this amazing love of technology. When I used to come back from the States and tell Bill Birch about Bluetooth and Java and so on, I could just see it in his face: “I haven’t got a bloody clue what you’re talking about, and so what.” I was an advocate of the internet long before it even came here. I argued about how it would change our lives. We would live on it. We would shop on it. We would transact. And I am quite pleased about it.

We had Bill Gates out here and I did a few presentations while he was here. He was good enough to give me a copy of his book at the end, and written in the front of it he has got “To Maurice. You are my favourite power user. I hope the whole world learns from what you have done in New Zealand.”—signed “Bill.” So that is not too bad—to have Bill Gates’ signature on a book.

I had the first iPhone ever in New Zealand and I had the first iPad. I remember bringing it into the House one day, and I think Tariana Turia was more excited about it than anybody else. Others just dismissed it as another one of Williamson’s little fads. Well, you are all going to live on them now, and I tell you what—with 3-D printing and driverless cars and so on, you have no idea how your world is going to change.

What a difference that was from when we came. There was no internet. There were no computers. I went to Hong Kong and bought myself a PC. I brought it down, set it up in my office up on the 3rd floor, and Sir Robert Muldoon walked past my office, stopped, backed back, and looked in at me working. All I was doing was word processing, writing a letter. He goes: “Ah, how’s the mad scientist tonight then, eh? Ah, ha, ha!”.

Now I will say a few things about achievements because I think you should say them. I do not want to go on too much because—this is boring. Who cares? I was the longest-serving Minister for a whole range of portfolios. I think 15 years for the statistics portfolio, longest-serving communications Minister, certainly the longest-serving building and construction Minister, and a number of others. But that really does not matter if you did not do anything.

Well, right from the moment I got here I put a member’s bill in, and drove it hard, about increasing the penalties for cruelty to animals. I have always believed in what Mahatma Gandhi said, that the degree to which a nation can be judged as having developed is the way it treats its animals. I think anybody, anyone, who can be cruel to animals really has something seriously, seriously wrong with them.

After that I did a few things. I became a Minister, and I have got some things that I am pretty proud of. I set up Pharmac in 1993, trying to implement a really good way of buying drugs without the drug companies being able to game us. I think Pharmac is one of our greatest inventions. I hope it never ever gets taken away.

But I had a couple of failures along the way. We tried—really. Simon Upton’s view, and I went with it, was that we could charge people for the hotel part of their hospital stay. When they go to hospital they are not at home, so they are not eating meals and they are not in their bed and they are not using electricity. So we could at least bill them for that bit of it. I tell you, that was about as successful as Lord Mountbatten’s Irish holiday.

OK—moving right along. One of the things I am really proud of is I set up the Māori broadcasting funding agency. You will know it as Te Māngai Pāho, but I called it Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi. OK; cool. We set up 23 Māori radio stations. This is something no one knows, and my colleagues are going to hate me when I tell you this. I actually put on the board of that two people: I am going to tell you. One was Hone Harawira, because at that time he was a radio broadcaster and I thought he brought some value to it. The other was somebody for whom you will not forgive me, and that was Annette Sykes. I had to take her off the board only a couple of years later when she advocated blowing up dams and burning down forests. But that is just a little bit along the way.

I did things like deregulating the postal service and stopped New Zealand Post having a monopoly on carrying bloody letters. How stupid was that! But there are a few things I am really proud of. In this House in 1999 I got up and I actually tabled the Mahon report about the Erebus crash. I was at Air New Zealand. I was deeply involved in what went on. Justice Mahon got it right. It was so wrong to blame just the pilot. All of the systems failed that pilot, and to blame him alone was wrong. I was so proud to table that report, because it had never been tabled. Sir Robert had refused to have it tabled. It was tabled in this House and it is a formal view of what happened at Erebus. It was a systemic failure, not one error. And to go to lunch with Marguerite Mahon, the wife of Justice Mahon, and with Maria Collins, and to get photos out the front—just the most moving, stunning time of my life and I will never forget it.

I have had to make some pretty tough decisions. You know, I got attacked over the Crafar farms sale to Shanghai Pengxin. But the law was quite clear that if they met the criteria, they met the criteria. Prime Minister John Key came to me one day and said: “We’ve got to do something about fixing the weathertight homes.” I said: “Well, it’s not our problem.” He said: “I know.” I said: “If I go and see Bill English he will say there’s no money.” He said: “I know, but we’ve got to do it.” And we did, and we put a package together, and thousands of people have been able to get their house fixed, from that package.

Then there was SmartGate and Customs. I know there are some Customs people—the previous comptroller, the current comptroller, and others—in the audience today. Martyn Dunne was a stunning Comptroller of Customs and Carolyn Tremain as his replacement is also. You are not allowed to have favourites, but Customs was by far my favourite. We have implemented technology, which means we process people in about 18 seconds flat, through the border, and it was what I think was really worthwhile.

I will talk now about the Maritime Transport Bill. Trevor Mallard would probably be one of the few—no, sorry, Ruth will remember it. We went night after night, for week after week, under urgency, until 3 in the morning, voting on Plimsoll lines, on toy ships, and so on. But it was such a touchstone bill. Helen Clark said it was the most pernicious, evil, disgraceful legislation this House had ever seen, and if Labour ever got elected, it would be the first to go. I am proud to say that after 9 years, not one clause of that bill got changed—not one clause of it. It allowed our ships to ply the coast and do well. I remember bringing things like geospatial into the whole Public Service, to make sure the Public Service did not think that data should just be in tabular form any more, and that actually having maps of where this occurred and how it occurred was better.

Probably my greatest success, I think, in getting something done—but it was hated beyond your wildest belief—was bringing in the photo driver’s licence. I thank very much Harry Duynhoven, who I think was here earlier—he might have gone off for drinks now. He and about eight other Labour members crossed the floor to give me the numbers on it, because we had some of ours who were not prepared to vote.

I tell you, Leighton Smith waged war against me daily—this was evil, this was Big Brother, this was the start of the identity card. My wife, Raewyn, used to say to me: “Why don’t you just give it up? I can’t get in the car without hearing them tearing you to shreds.” Well, we did it. It had the biggest drop in our road toll ever and I have never heard it raised again. That is what you have to do around this place. If it is right, you do it, you stand your ground, and, at the end of it, if it was right it will be proved to be right, and I am really pleased.

Finally, just quickly, one thing that I did not expect to be of any great moment was the gay marriage speech. It went to 59 countries, was translated into 19 languages—and a quick update; I got the Parliamentary Library to tell me. Since it was passed we have had 1,500 same-sex couple marriages out of 100,000 marriages during that time—so about 1.5 percent. So the world has not come to an end, and we have not had the gay onslaught wipe the rest of us heterosexuals out as was claimed. To those people who sent me some of the nasty—some of the emails were great: “I hope you die of AIDS, you bastard.” That was one of the nicer ones. Well, I have had a check-up before I head to the States and there is still no sign of HIV/AIDS at this point, so I am all right. I also checked my birth certificate and my parents were actually married on the day I was born—so not so much of a bastard.

OK, a few regrets—yes, there are a few regrets, and I am going to do only one, or two, or five, or whatever. The one I think is the biggest regret ever is I never, ever was able to persuade my ministerial colleagues that we really should get rid of commercial television. I seriously, seriously do not know why the Government owns a commercial television station. Oh, I know—it is so it can promote New Zealand culture and identity. So I had a look at the programme schedule: Masterchef Australia followed by Mrs Brown’s Boys, Emmerdale this afternoon, Coronation Street tonight, Instant Gardener, which I do not know, but it is a British programme of some sort, followed by Four in a Bed—you will be able to tell me more about that, Murray. You can tell me about it later. And there is The Chase and Tipping Point—both British. How the hell is that promoting New Zealand culture, for goodness’ sake! And its value when I tried—I pleaded with Jim Bolger about it. Its value back then was about four times what it is now and it is now four times what it will be, because nobody, nobody, is going to watch free-to-air ordinary TV in the future. They are going to watch it via what I think is my greatest little backroom success—and I am pleased that Sir John Key is here.

I went to John Key in 2006 after having worked very, very closely with Ron Woodrow. I mentioned Ron before—he was a bastion; I could go and hide—but the guy was so forward-thinking in technology. He rolled out CityLink, which was the big fibre-optic loop in the CBD here in Wellington. He did it himself with his own money and then sold it. He was always on about how fibre was the future. I remember talking to John and he said: “Oh, you know, the budgets are tight and I don’t think you’d get it through.” So I went to some of the policy meetings and I do not think Bill was pretty keen on it either.

Every time I went it was just struggle, struggle, trying to take fibre to the premises. It was unheard of; even the Australians were only going to go for fibre to the Cabinet. It was just the old Russian water drip—Chinese torture. I tried to get some people from the private sector involved. One who I thought would be involved just said it was a nonsense, that it would not happen, and “You’re dreaming.”—and now he actually is a board member of Crown Fibre Holdings, so that is quite interesting. But in the end I think John Key—and I think he might admit it—and Bill English finally just gave in to get me to shut up. We finally put together the ultra-fast broadband package to roll out fibre, and I think it is the greatest enabler, the greatest economic enabler, that this country will have.

On to elements of pride—there was one thing I was really proud of; I thought this was amazing. When Helen Clark was inducted into the Order of New Zealand, I was the Minister she requested attend in Auckland, and I did—at Government House—and I was really proud to be there. But I had to sort of offer up an apology at the time, and I will make sure I get it on record now, because we had sparred a lot before. Once in the House many years ago when I was transport Minister we were proposing building State Highway 20—not a tunnel, but State Highway 20; a road—through Waterview. Helen got up in the House and said that that would happen over her dead body and my retort was “That would be a small price to pay for a good road.”

I also tried to get some really smart-alec little cuts against the other side, and Trevor Mallard, I am sure, will remember this day. Labour was really polling very poorly—I think it was about mid-1994, 1993. I think the poll came up with Labour on 16 percent. We sat at our, what used to be, procedures and thought “How do we get a question to a Minister to actually get that 16?”, because, as Mr Peters will know, you cannot ask questions unless they are actually of a ministerial responsibility.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I know he does, but you cannot. OK, I thought: “I know what to do.” So I said it to the team and we put it up to procedures. So the question was to me as Minister of Broadcasting: “Has he had any complaints recently about the screening on Television One last week of The Sound of Music?”. I could see that Labour and the Opposition were going: “What the hell is this one?” as they worked through the question. “What are they getting at here?”, and they were stumped, absolutely stumped. So when we got to the House—I have got it all on video if you want to see it; it is cool. So I got the question: “Has he had any complaints about it?” and I said: “Mr Speaker, I actually have. I had a phone call from an irate Labour Party supporter who complained about the movie The Sound of Music, in particular the song ‘I am Sixteen Going On Seventeen’ ”. The supplementary was even better: “Did the irate phone caller have any other songs they were upset about?”. I said: “Indeed, Mr Speaker, there were two more songs: ‘High on the Hill I’m a Lonely Goatherd’ and ‘Farewell, Adieu to You and You and You’ ”.

So I just want to finish up by saying it is time to move. In fact, I should have gone a while ago; I can see that. I am a dinosaur and I accept it. In fact there was a really good little story Bridie sent to me out of the funny file. She said I attended a primary school in my electorate many years ago and the kids all wrote a lovely letter, as they do—you know: “It was great for you to come and I really enjoyed your speech.” One of the boys wrote—a little kid, only 5 or 6: “You reminded me of my favourite subject, dinosaurs.” I thought “Wow!”. Why I think I am now a dinosaur is I am completely out of tune with where I think modern thinking is—on both sides, on all sides; I am out of it.

I grew up in a farmhouse in Matamata that had scrim that moved on the walls and a potbelly stove and in winter it was bloody freezing. I am not trying to make out we were poorly off; everyone whom I lived around had it—that was what we lived in. Yet I hear today: “It is my right to a warm, dry, insulated home.” No, it is not. Actually, every right you have you have got to earn, and this idea that “I should have it, no matter what.” in my view, is wrong. We did not even have single glazing. Some of the windows did not close properly, so we just had nice draughts of air coming through.

Similarly with regards to—and I know this will get Sue Moroney really upset, but it is the same thing to do with family and child support stuff for the babies when they are being born. Raewyn and I spent quite some time working out, before we started a family, how we would financially do it before she gave up working at Air New Zealand. The idea that someone would ever pay for us to do that just does not swing for me. I am not trying to upset you; because it is upsetting them as well. It is just that—I am from the past, I should be back in the primeval swamp, and that is where I am going.

I do really lament—and I was so hoping I would have at least one target but they are not there, the journalist fraternity. When I came here journalists were on about substance, they were on about why the Government had done something, they would hold you to account for spending, etc. Now it is just unbelievable. Twenty-one years ago, almost to the day, in this House, David Lange gave a great speech, as he was leaving—his valedictory. He said: “I can’t stand it anymore. I’m getting out before where the journalist fraternity is going in this world gets to me.” He said this: “I picked up a magazine at Auckland Airport yesterday and it said ‘Candidate fights life-threatening addiction’.” You can check this in Hansard if you do not believe it. “ ‘Candidate fights life-threatening addiction’ ” said David. He said: “I was very intrigued with that, and when I opened it up it said that Pam Corkery was quitting smoking.” I will try to do the voice: “Good heavens!” said David. “What next? Next week we’ll be seeing ‘How I licked athlete’s foot’ by Pam Corkery”.

I simply agree with him. When TV3 drops Campbell Live but brings on some Scout programme about Rachel Glucina and the gossip columnist, I feel I lost the plot here. Something has gone wrong. Vaughan Jones, the top New Zealand mathematician, who has got a Fields Medal, gets no mention even though he is the top man in the world, but we now know about Kim Kardashian almost nightly and her $50 million arse—I think his name is Kanye.

So the test I have always applied is: “Will New Zealanders be better off?”. I will not go through a couple of the little stories here, but I have to say some of them were amazing. I had a guy in St Heliers who had an alien spaceship crash through his roof. He wanted me to come and help but he had donned a helmet and had slippers on. He had put a trampoline over the house so that the neighbours would not know it, and the alien was locked in the bathroom but was eating the cellulose from the wallpaper—“Please help if you can, Mr Williamson.” and, as you will be aware, I probably did not do much about that.

So that is it for me. I want to finish with a lovely quote from Edmund Burke, the British politician who said: “Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” So I have always held a North Star. I have always held the North Star, which is something to guide you by—for navigation: what is right, what is wrong, what matters, what does not, and putting that test on things. For me, it is about freedom of the individual, it is about rewarding individual effort, it is about that libertarian view: “As long as you are at the age of consent and you are not causing damage to any other person, then I believe you’ve got a right to do it.” So I voted on the liberal side of everything. God knows, back in the 1980s, the attacks we came under for allowing the shops to open on a weekend. Jim Knox said: “It’s the most evil thing and it’ll be the end of families, and if you open the shops on a Saturday, you know it won’t be long before they’re open on a Sunday as well.” And he was dead right. He was a visionary, that Jim Knox.

But I am very strongly free market, I am a very strongly right-wing, and when it comes to the welfare State, I am a fan of it being a hand up but not a handout. I am a fan of it being a safety net and not a trampoline. So my North Star is probably the exact 180-degree reverse of what Metiria Turei believes in terms of what is right and wrong with the welfare State.

But it is time to go. I am off to sunny California. I have got songs in my head; I have got the chord patterning to the Eagles’ “Hotel California”: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave”. Well, I am leaving. I tell you, I am leaving and I am looking so forward to it. It has been a great ride, there have been a lot of ups and downs, we have had a wonderful time, and I have had some wonderful people to share the journey. Thank you so much.

[Applause]

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to recap on the basics of this bill. I want to, again, acknowledge all of those interested parties that have acted with dignity and also with a lot of passion as well. I want to say to the House tonight that this is not a Treaty bill, but it is related to the Te Atiawa Treaty settlement and would not have come about except for a heads of agreement between the New Plymouth District Council and Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust. Through that, it has created a process to address the long and outstanding issue of the Waitara lands—of course, the Pekapeka Block, which was the very first piece of land to be confiscated in the New Zealand Wars.

It is great that we have the opportunity to see this bill have its second reading, but, as I said in my previous contribution, the two hapū Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua have still to give final sign-off on this bill, but they have agreed that it would have its second reading. As I understand it, they are very close to making a decision, after proper consultation with their people. So I wish them all the best in that endeavour. It is not exactly what they asked for—what some of the members of those hapū asked for at the Māori Affairs Committee—but, as I have stated previously, the changes are of a magnitude that not only provide them the opportunity to purchase and receive further lands within the Pekapeka Block, but also provide the means by which they can do that. That is a critically important part of what we have in front of us today.

This is a vastly different bill to the one that was first brought to the House. It is a much better bill. I, once again, recognise the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for his leadership in this process and Jonathan Young, as the sponsor of the bill. Nō reira e Te Whare, ko te tūmanako kia tae pai ai ki te mutunga o tēnei āhuatanga, nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, the hope is that the conclusion to this situation is arrived at. So acknowledgments to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki te iwi o Te Atiawa me ō hapū a Ōtaraua, a Manukōrihi, a Taranaki Mauka, a Tokomaru waka, nō reira, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations to you all throughout this House. I acknowledge you, the tribe of Te Atiawa, your hapū Ōtaraua and Manukōrihi, Mount Taranaki, Tokomaru waka, therefore greetings to you all.]

As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I have to say that this has been one of the more difficult pieces of legislation we have considered, and one of the most contentious as well. The New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, now at this second reading, has had a lot of considerable work done over these past months. That is not surprising in some ways, because here we are dealing with a 150-year-old issue that arises from the very regrettable history of Waitara, which goes back to colonisation and the New Zealand Land Wars caused by the Crown’s confiscation of Te Atiawa land, and specifically that of Manukōrihi hapū and Ōtaraua hapū. What became very clear to us during the submission process was that there was considerable disquiet from multiple stakeholder groups about the content of this bill, as it came to us from the New Plymouth District Council. The issues raised were significant, and it was clear to us that there would need to be a very considered and substantial response to them.

I want to acknowledge the immense privilege it has been to work with the hapū of Waitara and the New Plymouth District Council. I offer my appreciation also to the Taranaki Regional Council, although I do believe that an earlier engagement with the hapū of Waitara could have seen a more inclusive process—I truly believe that. However, what we have is the result of a lot of hard work by the committee and our officials, particularly under the leadership of Nashwa Boys, who was very, very largely responsible for bringing together the Waitara hapū, Te Atiawa, and the two councils. What we have out of this is an example of the innovative solutions that can be found if we really try.

I do not need to recite the history of Waitara; Mr Young has already done that. But what I will say is that I have witnessed at first hand the effects of the Land Wars and Crown confiscations. I had the privilege to attend the Parihaka reconciliation ceremony in June, and what a day that was—what a day. What an incredible wairua was present there. It was a joy to see the real power of kotahitaka—of everyone coming together to forge a new pathway for the people of today and also their future generations.

If Parihaka is the final chapter of the Land Wars, then Waitara was the beginning—Waitara was the beginning. Even though the Crown renounced its purchase of the Pekapeka Block in 1863, the damage had already been done and was compounded by the confiscation of 1865. You also heard in Mr Young’s speech just what happened after the confiscation and how the New Plymouth District Council is in its third attempt to right this matter. I think the councils are pretty close to succeeding this time, because their hearts and minds are open and they have begun forging a new relationship with the Waitara hapū. I commend them for having the courage to see where the original bill was flawed and recognising that if things were going to be different then they had to act differently towards, particularly, the mana whenua of Waitara.

I also want to commend the Waitara hapū and the leadership of Te Atiawa. Their conviction that the issue was of the utmost importance to them showed us through the hearings that the councils had not got the bill right, and that we needed to work through some alternative ideas. I know that there is still some disquiet about what has actually been presented before them in this bill that we have in the House, but I know that at least this heavily revised bill enables the leaders of the hapū to engage through hui and kōrero with their people, and this stage of the bill, I feel, will provide a catalyst for that to actually happen.

This second reading marks the beginning of a period of consultation for Manukōrihi and also Ōtaraua hapū to meet and decide whether they can agree with what is being proposed in the bill, keeping in mind that they have really had only just over 3 weeks to actually look at this bill and discuss it—the bill that we have here in the House tonight. Mark my words: there could be Supplementary Order Papers containing any changes they agree upon with the councils. Ultimately, if they cannot support the bill to the final reading, at least there has been, I believe, a clear and fair process to get to this particular point, rather than the original bill, which was, in some ways, imposed on them.

I am heartened, though, that the revised bill does enable some pretty unique things to occur. I want to cover a couple of them. First, it allows the Hapū Land Fund Committee to have autonomy over the fund, to buy developed and maintained land in and around Waitara. This is an essential pathway for the hapū to rejuvenate its connection to Waitara and also the Pekapeka Block.

When we look at the Pekapeka Block, this is a piece of whenua—a piece of land—that is of national significance, because this was the immediate cause of the New Zealand Land Wars. As such a site of real significance, it is appropriate that this bill provides such a strong co-governance arrangement between the mana whenua, the hapū, and the local authorities.

The next part of the bill enables the Waitara River Committee—a joint council and Māori committee—to have autonomy over its decision making on the river. To the best of my knowledge, that is a first in New Zealand, and something to commend the Taranaki Regional Council for. As we know, the Waitara River traverses through steep hill country, as well as dairy farms, and the Waitara community has raised issues about its cleanliness over many years—over a large number of years. While the Taranaki Regional Council has been improving water quality, the bill will dramatically increase its ability to fund the improvements over and above the Government’s freshwater reform programme.

In short, the bill turns a significant and contentious issue in the Waitara community into a positive opportunity for the Waitara community to grow and prosper. It enables the township to determine its own future in a way that promotes that growth.

The bill also addresses the proceeds of the endowment lands. The New Plymouth District Council could sell the leasehold land today, if it chose. However, the proceeds of doing so would not be used for the benefit of the community, nor would it provide for mana whenua. This bill provides a better outcome for the whole community than what it has in the present status quo.

So, in summary, because this bill is very different to what we introduced, I appreciate that the Waitara hapū now have work to do to work through this. They have the opportunity to actually kōrero and hui, and then to discuss their way forward. I acknowledge the two councils again, the two courageous hapū, and Te Atiawa itself. If I am given the privilege to be in this House again in the next term and to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to seeing this bill through to the third reading and Royal assent to become law.

It has been a huge journey for Te Atiawa, but, particularly, I come back to the two hapū of Manukōrihi and also Ōtaraua. They have, even in this 21st century, borne the terrible non-communitive way that their ancestors were treated, and so, on that note, I believe that they have shown really huge courage. I commend them and hope that they will find their way through and be able to accept what we have worked really hard to bring to this House. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take pleasure in speaking on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill. I acknowledge the work of all those who have brought the bill to this stage: the New Plymouth District Council; its current mayor, Neil Holdem; his predecessor Andrew Judd, and also the former chief executive of that district council, Barbara McKerrow, who worked hard with Te Atiawa to get an agreement that has led to this legislation; the Taranaki Regional Council, which has the immediate legal stake in these lands; the hapū, Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua; and of course, the MP for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, who has shepherded this bill into the House and also assisted with it going through the Māori Affairs Committee. I will come to the work of the select committee shortly.

The course of events that has led this bill to come here and the issues that underpin it have their own interesting path. Mr Korako talked about the origins in terms of the land confiscations in the 1860s, which are these lands. They have been those endowment lands and leasehold lands leased to the occupiers of it since then. Those confiscations followed the Land Wars, about which we are all really starting to learn the true historical significance. But the issue of these lands and the present occupants of them—the residents of them—has been a festering sore in that town for a long time.

Waitara is a small but very proud town just north of New Plymouth. A working town, it serves the local farming district. Once upon a time it had as its principal employer a massive meatworks—Borthwicks—which has gone now. There is a meatworks there, but it is a producer of very fine goods, and there are a number of other industries that sustain Waitara right now. But still there are residents and occupants of the land there who are paying ground leases under Glasgow leases, which come up for renewal every 21 years, and every 21 years there is a massive hike in the ground rents, and the whole argument gets under way again. That is not to take away from the significance of the local hapū and iwi, who have been seeking their Treaty settlement, of which these lands were originally considered to be a part of.

So in the last 20 or 30 years there have been two trains of activity happening side by side. One is Te Atiawa—another Taranaki iwi—pursuing their Treaty claims and finally getting their negotiations under way, and the other is the current occupants of the dwellings that occupy that land trying to get what they perceive as their right to purchase the freehold. That was the question that went to the court—it went to the highest court of the land at the time—based on what those residents thought was a promise made to them, that they could get to own their little plot of land, but they were defeated. As a consequence of the Treaty negotiations for Te Atiawa and some very progressive thinking by the community, by the community leaders, and also by Te Atiawa—who at the relevant point elected not to take up the land as part of their Treaty settlement—these arrangements have come to Parliament for its consideration. That is a good thing, and it has been a good step.

I think it is also to be acknowledged—the way the land has been administered. The proceeds from the ground rents on the land have been allowed to be used for only very limited purposes. It is currently now under the stewardship of the Taranaki Regional Council, but that relates to maintenance of the sea end of the river and the port and the harbour that sits around there. Through the efforts and the energy of those who have now taken up this issue, while respecting the concerns of the hapū and respecting the concerns of the settlors who are currently on that land, they have come up with a solution that allows the hapū to achieve a benefit and some control about the long-term stewardship of the land, as well as those who have been seeking to purchase the freehold rights of land that they occupy, and a happy conclusion is close to being reached.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee—particularly the chair, Mr Korako, who has now spoken—for the close scrutiny it has given to the original bill, and for allowing a set of discussions and negotiations to open up to ensure that the ultimate deal that this House will give its final blessing to in the third reading is one that every party can live with and that every party benefits from. I have to say that in relation to Taranaki settlements, that has been one of the virtues in the last few years of this Government’s approach, where flexibility has been allowed for those deeply emotionally felt historical issues. They have been dealt with in a respectful way and that has led to a resolution of those issues outside conventional Treaty settlements.

I see the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is in the House, and he deserves a lot of credit for the approach that he has taken, which I know in Taranaki has made a significant difference to Māori in that community, and to Pākehā as well. In the end, when Māori are unsettled and dispirited about the inability to achieve a resolution to their historical grievances, it means the entire community faces the same disquiet. That we are now in the process of settling longstanding festering issues I think is a credit to all those involved. The approach that has been taken under this bill alone in allowing further discussion, further negotiation, and a settlement that meets the needs of all interested parties is really giving life to the Treaty, and I think that is to be noted, and credit is to be given where it is due.

The changes that have been suggested by the Māori Affairs Committee are many, and I think that is a good sign that the committee has been fully engaged. It has listened to those who have come to speak to it, and it has been willing to show that change, which, in this great Parliament of ours, is nothing more than we would expect. Giving a place for the hapū, for Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, giving them a role in the governance, giving them a role and a say over the proceeds that can be generated through the sale of the leasehold to freehold owners or the ongoing rents that will be collected from the land, is a positive step. Defining the Waitara River and vesting the Waitara River not in Te Atiawa but in a separate legal entity that will look after and provide stewardship for that river, from its origins to where it spews out into the beautiful Taranaki west coast, will, I think, ensure the voice of all relevant parties in managing that river, getting it clean again, and bringing life back to it. That is a great achievement.

Ensuring a good and fair distribution of the funds to be used for a variety of purposes beyond what the Taranaki Regional Council is limited to doing right now is a positive step as well, and the committee is to be congratulated on ensuring that those concerns have been heard and the ability to do stuff for that community is now to be put in place. The New Plymouth District Council and the role it has played in making other reserve land available to be picked up by the hapū from the proceeds that are generated from the sale of the leasehold lands—that, I think, is also in the spirit of the Treaty settlements and the restoration of land and mana whenua to local hapū, and is to be welcomed as well.

Like all these things, like all of the settling of these longstanding grievances, in the end it is about restoring justice, giving fairness, and giving peace back to communities again—to the tangata whenua and to Pākehā settlers there as well. This bill has the ability to do that, subject to what happens in the Committee of the whole House, and I support the bill.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to take a brief call following on from that generous and thoughtful contribution of Mr Little to just say a few words of my own. It is perhaps a little unusual for a Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to take a call on this matter, but let me explain why I have. I think the Māori Affairs Committee has done a really good job on this legislation. It could be described as principled and clever.

I have been very involved in Treaty negotiations in Taranaki during my period of stewardship of this portfolio, and I was very pleased to sign deeds of settlement with Ngāruahine, with Taranaki, and also with Te Atiawa. I signed that deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown on 9 August 2014. All members of Parliament who were present, across all the parties, at Parihaka in June will recall what a powerful ceremony that was, and that legislation has been introduced to the House today. The Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and I are very engaged in negotiations with Ngāti Maru and with all the Taranaki iwi over the maunga. There is a lot of work that I think we as a Parliament—because it is Parliament’s work; I have been very privileged to be the Minister, but it is Parliament’s work—can all be so very proud of. We have addressed these difficult issues, and we have done so pretty well over the last few years.

But there was one issue that hung over me like a cloud, and it was this question of the Waitara lands. My chief Crown negotiator for Te Atiawa is the former Labour Minister Rick Barker, who did a fabulous job, but a decision was made during the course of negotiations that the lands were not to be taken back, and it met with a great deal of opposition. I was very worried about this legislation when it was introduced, and I wondered what the legislative course would be. But I think, as I say, Mr Jonathan Young and all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee have done a really good job on this.

Look, we are going to deal only with the second reading tonight, and when it gets to the Committee stage in the new Parliament there could well be further discussions about some of the detail. But I want to say to members that I think they have done a great job in a bipartisan way to deal with these difficult issues and bring back to the House a bill that is much improved on the one that was introduced. I know there was a lot of concern when it was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, but, with respect, that was exactly the right committee to send it to. It should not have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It had to go to the Māori Affairs Committee because of the history of the Waitara lands and the history of Taranaki negotiations. It would have been bizarre for it to have gone anywhere else.

For myself, I think that the mechanisms that have been set out in the bill are very good, and I am particularly pleased about the proposals in relation to the Waitara River. Mr Little mentioned I think it was the former AFFCO freezing works, which is now owned by ANZCO Foods after a very interesting case in the courts. It is doing a very good job there employing large numbers of Waitara people, but it is fair to say that while it does not necessarily spread effluent into the river, the river has been very badly damaged over the years, and a lot of work is going to need to be undertaken to get it back to pristine condition. I can say now—I do not think I am disclosing any confidences—that in the course of negotiations with Ngāti Maru, one of the questions that keeps coming up is the health and well-being of the Waitara River. That it is being addressed in this way I think is a very, very clever approach.

There will be matters of detail that a future Parliament is going to have to look at, but I want to commend once again the membership of the select committee and the officials, and I particularly want to mention someone from the Office of Treaty Settlements, Nashwa Boys, who has worked on a lot of these matters over the years and is a consummate professional. I am very, very proud of the work that she and the team at OTS have done because I think the net result is much improved on the bill that was introduced. This is a brief call because I know how keen everyone is to blast through all these stages of various bills so that we can get on to the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, because it would be great to have that passed by 10 o’clock. So with these brief comments I do not think I have anything more to add, and I will sit down.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare nui. I have found this New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill to be one of the most interesting experiences of my political time here, and I want to acknowledge that after the first reading, the Green Party agreed for it to go to select committee because we thought there were some really important issues that needed to be looked at. I sat here one night with my colleague Metiria Turei, and I said to her: “Metiria, I think this needs to go to the Māori Affairs Committee.” It was Metiria Turei who made sure that it did, and who negotiated that across this House. That is one of the reasons why I honour her—because it really needed to go to that committee, and the committee did a great job.

I think it is because, whatever we call this bill—it does not really matter—this bill is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Pekapeka Block. At the heart of it is the issue of what happened historically, which is so alive to the people today in Waitara—to the two hapū, Ōtaraua and Manukōrihi. I just wanted to mihi to them tonight—to those two hapū and to Te Atiawa—and to just acknowledge that whatever work we do is nothing compared with the work that they have done. Whatever we struggle with is nothing compared with the struggle that they have been through. I acknowledge that the leaseholders and all the people who have lived in those houses as individuals have been through a lot, but it is not the same as what has happened to those people who, from the 1860s, experienced total land loss and devastation of their culture.

When we went up to te Ōwae Marae, we heard very strong voices saying to us that this was not just about a district council making an arrangement; this was about the Pekapeka. I think what was really good about the work the select committee did was that we all heard that, and the select committee and the officials tried to work with the spirit of that wero that was laid down to us that day at the marae.

The Green Party is very clear—and although I will not be here when the bill comes back to the House after the election, one of us will be—that it is not about the individual; it is about the kaupapa. For us, the kaupapa is that when the consultation is done and when the hapū of Waitara are satisfied, then we will vote for this bill. So we are not voting for the second reading. We are going to look forward to the possibility of voting for the third reading, but we are not prepared to do that until the hapū have had their process. The reason that we say that is because they begged for more time—they begged for time—and they said to us: “Please do not take this bill back to the House unless we can have proper time for consultation.” This situation, as has been described for others, does allow for that—it allows for that time—and, hopefully, for the resources for that to happen. They had a very, very short period of time to talk to their people and they were not ready to make a decision. Until they are ready, in the fullness of their consultation with all their people in Waitara—those hapū—the Greens will not be making a decision either.

So we will not be supporting the bill tonight, but we will be reserving our judgment and committed to trying to see. If those hapū come back satisfied that this is sufficient for them, then we consider supporting it, and that, to us, is the principled position for us to take. I appreciate that others see it differently, but that is our principled position, because this is Pekapeka and because the endowment land, whatever percentage of it, is not the whole block that was lost. We are very cognisant of what was told to us by the people up there at te Ōwae about the whole block and what it means to them. What they simply kept asking us is: “Why can’t we have it back?”.

I recognise that this bill, and the Office of Treaty Settlements, particularly Nashwa Boys, did a fantastic job in getting people to the table—they did. They did a great job, and they got people to the table—people who should have been at the table a long time before, like the Taranaki Regional Council. The New Plymouth District Council transformed its approach, and I hope that is forever, not just for the satisfaction of this bill. To me, if it is now ready to have a proper relationship with those hapū in that rohe around these issues of land and awa, that does not depend on this bill. That should be what the councils do forever, so let us hope that this is not just about: “Let’s get rid of this nasty little problem of the Waitara leasehold lands.” Let us hope this is the beginning of a permanent Te Tiriti - based honourable relationship from those councils to those hapū, because it has been missing. I think the New Plymouth District Council has moved widely, but the Taranaki Regional Council had to be dragged screaming, and that is not really the spirit that we need.

That is why time must be given for this process to be worked through, and that is why we will be giving it serious consideration and more time before we decide whether we can support the third reading. It is with all due respect to everything that has gone on and all the efforts, but the faces of the people are before me and all I can hear is their voice. I know that the hapū fund and the river fund are great initiatives, but there is a bigger picture that they need to have time to talk through. It is their mamae, and they have to be satisfied that this is the best that they can hope to negotiate.

I am very aware that the leaseholders have been through a number of processes and have been waiting for a resolution as well. What I like about one aspect of the bill is where it talks about spending some of the money, if it goes through, on educating the people about the history. That is where Parihaka has been such an inspiration and is still such an inspiration. I do acknowledge that the whole process that we went through—those of us who went to Parihaka to see the Crown there, to see the people together—is inspirational, and the Waitara people deserve no less. They deserve no less—those mana whenua hapū deserve no less.

Yes, I think it is great about the river. It is interesting, because I have been working on that river for some time with some other mana whenua, and have been viciously attacked in the local media, which has said that there is nothing wrong with the river. But there is only so much denial—you know, Waitara is not a river in Egypt; it is time to get out of denial about that river. I would welcome that funding to happen under the control of those guys—under the control of the subcommittee that is being suggested to be appointed through a committee of all of the tangata whenua groups associated with the awa.

It is the same with the hapū land fund. An opportunity to build an economic base is crucial for the well-being of those hapū. But if those guys have their consultation process and decide that now is not the time for them to accept that some of those houses will be sold, that they will lose, forever, what has always been their long-term passionate heart’s desire, we will stand with them. It is up to us in this Parliament to exercise absolute creativity, as this bill tries to do, and absolute patience as well for what has not been dealt with. If these people say they want the Pekapeka and we need to keep working on it, the Green Party is prepared to keep working on it. We will not be saying: “Take it or leave it.” Yes, there is momentum here and we recognise that, but that momentum has to be based on justice, and justice for all does not include marginalising people who said to us at te Ōwae: “Kia tūpato, this is Pekapeka.”

We are reserving our judgment. We are hopeful, but we are also respectful that the people of the Taranaki have continually said to us: “Be careful. Be aware of what has been taken from us. Be aware of how we are sick of giving and waiting for trust to be built.” We recognise their position very, very strongly in this House tonight.

It has been a positive process to see the first bill—which was, you know, quite honestly, unacceptable—transformed by the work of a select committee where people were all dedicated to trying to do what was best. We remain pleased by that, but it is in the hands of those people—the hapū te Manukōrihi me Ōtaraua. Their rangatiratanga is what is at stake here. They are not required to sort out the mess that colonisation imposed upon them, but if they can come to a party that meets their needs, we are there as well. We are still going to be listening and we are still hopeful, but justice under Te Tiriti comes first. I look forward to hearing what the hapū have to say back to us. Whakarongo ki te Pāremata—listen. We need to whakarongo, and then we can hold our heads up. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tenā tātou o Te Whare, tēnā hoki koutou e whakarongo mai nā i ēnei kōrero e pā ana ki te pire e kī nei te New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us the House; salutations, as well, to you there collectively, listening in to these contributions about this bill here called the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill.]

For those of you who are listening and do not understand Māori, I am just acknowledging the people of Te Atiawa, Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua—that this is their bill, that it has come before the House as part of the process, and that it is in its second reading.

This bill is a reminder to this country of the dark history of Aotearoa. I do not need to articulate anything more about that history, other than to note that the people of Taranaki suffered not only loss of life but a grave injustice—suffice to say. And I need to put in a plug here: on 28 October, in the North, we will be commemorating the New Zealand Land Wars. So we are starting the process. I do not know where it will be next year, but it will be in Tai Tokerau on 28 October, and it coincides with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and that is causing some discussion at home.

Be that as it may, back to the bill, it involves land that is very important to, particularly, the people of Waitara. I want to say that New Zealand First has certainly looked at the intent of the bill, and we have no difficulty with that. We have provided a minority view, and it covers two issues.

One is that we believe that the remedy of the damage referred to, to the river, should be something that should be picked up by central government. I note from today’s New Zealand Herald that there is a comment here, “River clean up: Around 100 New Zealand rivers will be cleaned up with the help of $44 million in grants, the Government announced yesterday afternoon.” Having read that, the first question that I ask myself is whether the Waitara River will be a recipient of part of that fund. If it is, then that would make available the funds that will be drawn from the income of the lease properties available to the subcommittee that has the responsibility of recommending the purchase or otherwise of the lease land as they come up for sale. So that is something that I think will be subject to a Supplementary Order Paper from New Zealand First.

The other thing that has always been an issue for us is the membership of the subcommittee representing both the regional council and iwi. The bill actually refers to members nominated by the council. That could be anyone, but if the nominations are to be councillors who have been elected on to council, then we certainly have a difficulty about the non-council membership of that committee not being subject to the same process. So I would just signal that, but I think that the fact that the bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee was a very wise decision of this House. It just re-emphasises to me the importance of things Māori being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee and the fact that the people of New Zealand and of this House should not be afraid of things that clearly have some impact on Māori being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The acknowledgment of previous speakers of the work that the committee has done is testament to the fact that the Māori Affairs Committee certainly has the capacity to do so. The work done by officials—and reference has been made to Ms Nashwa; I will just refer to her as Nashwa. The work that she has done is testament to the work that she has certainly done not only for this case but, obviously, for other work on behalf of the Office of Treaty Settlements. I just want to join with previous speakers in acknowledging her in that respect.

The other thing is that I want to acknowledge Mr Young, and I think that he has done a good job in shepherding the bill through the House, and he is an example of a member of Parliament actually representing and assisting his community—two things that I think that all members of this House should be responsible for.

There is not too much else that I would like to comment on at this stage, other than to just reiterate that our position at this stage will be to abstain, in terms of the bill, but we recognise that although this is not a Treaty of Waitangi settlement bill, it certainly has some association with Treaty settlements.

I can recall in the 48th or 47th Parliament, where Ngāti Mutunga came before the Māori Affairs Committee—these two young gentlemen representing their iwi and being awarded only $14 million. I can remember quite clearly asking them: “Why aren’t you asking for more given the history of colonisation in that area?”. And I can remember them quite clearly saying to me: “Pita, the problem with us is we don’t have the same political influence as other iwi.” And I knew what he was referring to. He was referring to Tai Tokerau, who had Sir Graham Latimer, God rest his soul, and then we had Tainui with Koro Wētere, and others. And here were these two young men representing their iwi, making that plea. But suffice to say that those same young men are today leaders within the Māori world, and I am talking about Jamie Tuuta and his cousin Dion Tuuta. I will never forget these two young men, with all their kaumātua and kuia sitting in the back putting their faith in them.

I believe this bill is similar to the people of Waitara putting their faith in this bill to address a situation that has been with them for quite a long time. I think that, to a certain extent, while the original Māori owners do not get exactly what they want, this bill goes a long way to achieving (1) their desire to have the land returned to them, and (2) the allocation of those funds that they draw from those leaseholds being utilised to do what they would like it to do. So without further ado, I again say that we will abstain, but that does not mean to say that we do not believe in the intent of the bill. Kia ora.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill in the second reading. I want to acknowledge Te Ātiawa, ngā hapū o Manukōrihi, and Ōtaraua and the many years that they have waited for this day to come. I want to add my acknowledgments to Nashwa Boys, sitting up in the gallery there, for the mahi that you do in the Treaty settlement bills, and especially on this particular bill. I realise it was not the easiest one to do, but we got there and it was all because of your hard work and your diligence to get us there, so thank you very much. I also want to take time out to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I do not think I was on the committee when this bill came, but I think, like other members in the House, that it was a bill that needed to come to the Māori Affairs Committee. I think that the work that the committee has done, led by Nuk Korako, the chair, has been amazing.

The lands of Taranaki have been such a big, real dent in our history. When I look at the Taranaki Wars that began back in 1859, because the Crown wanted the land, and especially the land at Waitara—the iwi said no, and that kicked off the first Taranaki land war. It was an atrocity. Even though all the other iwi around the motu came to help out, lives were unnecessarily lost and so was land—485,000 hectares of Te Ātiawa land was confiscated, leaving Te Ātiawa, basically, with a loss of their social, their cultural, and their political structures for the iwi. However, history is a great thing; it teaches us a lot, I believe. It teaches us things that we should not do and places that we should attempt to remedy.

Over the history of this Waitara lands bill, there have been several attempts from the New Zealand Government to redress the past. We have a number of important dates as they have gone through in history. In 1999 Te Ātiawa signed the heads of agreement. In 2004 the New Plymouth District Council resolved to sell 146 hectares on the condition that proceeds would go to be used in Waitara, and there was the settlement of Te Ātiawa claims. There was big opposition to that, which was mounted in 2008—and enter the Hon Chris Finlayson. Through his work, he has been able to resolve the issues that had been facing the iwi, the council, and the leaseholders.

As I move through my kōrero, I look at the actual bill itself and the three main policy components of the bill. Just through listening to the kōrero in the House, the discussions that actually went on between the Māori Affairs Committee and the submitters at Waitara, at Ōwae Marae, and the discussions that actually helped to shape the bill, it might not be to everybody’s liking but it is something that has actually got us to a point now that we can move forward with the support of Te Ātiawa.

As I was saying, there are three main policy components in this bill. The first is that the council will bestow 40 hectares of land in Te Ātiawa; that includes 13 hectares of vacant land, zoned residential in the district plan and other coastlines. Te Ātiawa can use and develop a new base in their Waitara homelands—yay. Te Ātiawa will also be acknowledged as the owner of three pieces of reserve lands with the council providing the day-to-day administration. As we have heard in the House tonight, there is joint decision-making on strategic issues for these reserves and Te Ātiawa will also have the opportunity to purchase over 30 hectares of land in Waitara in the future through the right of first refusal (RFR) if the council wants to sell. That is a very key component of this bill as well, because it gives Te Ātiawa the rights to be able to do with their lands what they want under the RFR.

The second part of the bill—as I said before, there are three components to this—is that the leaseholders will have a right to freehold. In other words they will have a right to buy some of the land underneath their family homes, and I am sure the leaseholders will start to feel some sort of comfort around that rather than being bound by those 21-year Glasgow rent cycles, the lease agreements. I am sure that the leaseholders will be very happy with where we have come to on that.

Lastly, the proceeds from the leasehold land will also be invested back into Waitara. That is really key, because Waitara will be able to actually develop and grow the area for the benefit not just of the people who are living there but also mainly for the iwi. I applaud that—I absolutely applaud that. So the economic development for Te Ātiawa will actually grow in leaps and bounds, I believe, because that is an important area but it is also an area that has got considerable potential economic wealth for the iwi.

Finally, for the Waitara River, there is the plan to clean the river and keep the river and look after the river—the ability for the Te Ātiawa whānau to be able to have some say in how that river will be managed into the future. That is a great big plus for the people of Te Ātiawa. Just like the Waikato River there is that agreement between the regional council, the council, and Te Ātiawa to have their say and to be able to co-manage that awa.

As I stand here tonight and I wind up my kōrero to support this bill, I am a little bit disappointed that New Zealand First is just going to abstain. I think that this is too much of an important bill to be abstaining on the vote for the second reading. And also to the Greens, I think that everybody needs to step up, have their say and say that yes, we support this, because this is very important for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. Yes, it is Te Ātiawa; yes, it is Waitara, but they are people, they are tangata whenua of their area, and I believe that we all should be supporting this bill no matter what.

So without any further ado, I am very pleased and very proud to stand and support and commend this bill to the House. Again, I congratulate Jonathan Young for the work that he has been doing with the people of Te Ātiawa and Waitara, the leaseholders, and the council. I understand that it would not have been an easy task, but you have persevered and you have got to this stage, so I commend the bill to the House. Thank you very much.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Tēnā koe e Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā koutou ngā whānau o Waitara.

[My appreciation to this House and salutations to you collectively, the families of Waitara.]

To all the Waitara families out there who are watching this, I am speaking by accident, in some ways, because the minor parties are not here to take a call and the Green Party is not taking a second call.

I want to start by just acknowledging our member of Parliament for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian Rurawhe, for the awesome work that he has done with engaging with the stakeholders on this, with engaging with hapū and iwi, with the insights that he has brought to this particular bill from his experience working with our Māori community and his experience with Treaty negotiations as well. It has been invaluable in this, and it is not just the work that he has done within the community or on the ground on the bill; it is also feeding back to us, as interested members of Parliament, his colleagues, who want to know and have wanted to be kept up to date with what has been happening with this particular bill. Many people know that my interest comes from the fact that despite not being Māori I was born and raised in Waitara—literally born and raised in Waitara, born in that Waitara maternity home—alongside many people who have a stake and a vested interest in what happens here.

I want to refer to the time—maybe a year ago—when I went with Adrian to consult with locals about what they thought about this particular bill. This particular meeting was one of those ones where you have a massive turnout. There were two people who showed up. The thing that really struck us was that you had an older Pākehā woman who was retired and not in a position to purchase a home or pay the inevitable increased lease that was going to be asked of her, and on the other side you had a younger Māori man, Sheldon Healey, who had a family and a vested interest on behalf of his family with regard to being able to purchase that property.

The thing that struck us was that, despite the fact that they had different perspectives, they respected each other’s position and had consensus around the fact that an answer had to be found. The feedback that we get from Adrian, from the process that he has been engaged with, is that that is exactly how the process has run the whole way through. Whether it be hapū, leaseholders, Te Atiawa Trust, the council, the district council, or the community at large, it has been a respectful process and people just want to come up with a solution. So we are here tonight supporting this bill—supporting this bill under the recommendation that came to Adrian from the wider community, but from the hapū as well, to support it to its next stage, and to keep considering what we have in front of us so that we can come up with a solution that meets the needs of all of the stakeholders that have been engaged with this process.

I want to acknowledge both the hapū, Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, and the Te Atiawa iwi. I want to acknowledge all the leaseholders. I want to acknowledge everyone who has been engaged, not just our MP for Te Tai Hauāuru, on this side of the House, but also the MP for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, over there. I just especially want to just—you know, we all have the hope that, actually, some of the hurt that has been caused by past actions would be healed in this process, and I think it has been great that there has been general consensus across the House that we need to look for the best outcome for Waitara here. It has not been used as a political football, which is unusual in this place, actually, to be honest. I think everyone is looking for the best results. Kia ora koutou.

Kelvin Davis: Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this another 5-minute call? This is not, sorry. I call Barbara Kuriger.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I have not been part of the Māori Affairs Committee but I have had a knowledge all of my life in growing up in Taranaki about the hurts and grievances that have been around Waitara. I will say that for a big part of my life I knew there was hurt and grievance but I did not really know the full history. As some of the speakers before talked about, as we work through this process, we should be looking at telling the story and making sure that people in generations to come fully understand. My grandparents actually retired in Waitara before they passed away. That was many, many years ago—my dad’s parents; they actually passed away when I was 8 years old—but I do have memories of going to Waitara.

I was doing a little bit of research before, not just about the history of the Land Wars, which are an atrocious piece of history, but for both sides there has been disappointment. The town was apparently also supposed to have been the capital of the Taranaki province, and would have been, they say, if chief surveyor Carrington had been a better sailor and had enjoyed the trip over the Waitara River bar. Instead, he was terrified and decreed that all the locals’ cunning plans were to come to nothing and went ahead with a breakwater and a port at New Plymouth instead. It is amazing how that disappointment at Carrington’s perceived treachery has carried down over the years and how coming, as it always did, from the town’s business elite, it may have hampered growth and formed the “poor relation” attitude that the town has had about itself.

I do not think it has just been an attitude thing; Waitara is town that really has not had a fair go. It is a low socio-economic town. Waitara east is decile 9 and Waitara west is decile 10. The iwi have not been given a fair go, due to those horrific events. When I think about it, 1860 was 100 years before I was born, so there has been a lot of grievance and a real lot of hurt for a very long time.

I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, which has spent so much time working on this. I know this is a second reading, but I really hope that we can make this work going forward, because I think this community has suffered for far too long. I would like to acknowledge Nuk, the chair of the committee, and Jonathan Young, as the local MP and the sponsor.

I have got a couple of tiny little wee pieces in this area in my electorate, the golf club being one of them. I must admit, I have never played a game of golf at that golf club. I have played only one game of golf in my life, very badly. But it is a part of my electorate that I fully respect in terms of this bill. Look, you know, I now realise the relevance of it—the horrific history and how this was a place where we started a piece of our New Zealand life that really is not very memorable. So I would really like to thank the iwi and the hapū, both Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua, and the New Plymouth District Council—those people who are currently in the council and, particularly, the past mayor and the CEO, who were very instrumental in getting this going—the Taranaki Regional Council, and I would also like to acknowledge our Minister Christopher Finlayson, who has done a lot of work around Treaty settlements. He is a very well-respected Minister and member of Parliament who does a fantastic job.

Tonight a few people in the course of this have talked about Parihaka. I grew up, again, about 20 minutes from Parihaka, and we all knew that there was something terrible that had happened there and did not quite know the full story. I feel very blessed and very special that I was able to be at that celebration that we had recently.

So what I would ask for tonight is to have some tolerance, and it really is disappointing for me that we do have some parties that are abstaining and some parties that are voting against this, because my view is that if the people in the community and the iwi and the hapū are happy with what we are doing, then it really is not up to us to then turn round and change what they agreed. And so, not having been part of the process—I understand there is more listening to go on, and I understand there is a wee way to go with this, but I really feel like it is important that we show some tolerance and we take that on board.

So this is a community that I want to see reach its full potential. We often talk in this House about housing and people buying homes and people buying first homes, and I know that for a long time those people of Waitara have wanted to freehold those homes. So for them it is a win. For the iwi and hapū it is a win in terms of being able to get some funding over time. And, look, always acknowledge that there is a generosity in all of these things. With any settlement, it takes a big heart for people to accept what is being offered, because it can never make up for the wrongs of the past.

Te Atiawa is seeking the return of their land. The leaseholders, as I said, are seeking to freehold their houses, and the community has not been able, up until this point, to make the best use out of the proceeds of the land. So all of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done with the local community and iwi is going to be very, very beneficial to people going forward.

I do not really want to extend this speech or contribution for much longer—just to say that I fully support this as a relatively local MP and someone who has been seeing this go on for a long time. I think we really owe it to ourselves going forward to ensure that we get this to fruition, because these people—all of them—have suffered for long enough, and I would like to see Waitara go forward. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a very proud member of the Māori Affairs Committee—we have been patting ourselves on the back here tonight. But I really do want to acknowledge the work of Nashwa Boys, who is sitting up in the gallery there. To a person on our committee, we were absolutely amazed and thrilled at the work that she had put in to bring this all together. We were at a stage when we were pulling our hair out, and then, I think, within a week or so we were all smiles and full of joy.

So I just say to Minister Finlayson that Nashwa is worth her weight in gold, and having pulled this one together for us, I would suggest a couple of months in the United Nations sorting out the Middle East tensions and then, when she has resolved that, there is a little issue of a not-insignificant iwi up North, north of Whangarei. It straddles the Bay of Islands and Hokianga. Maybe she could work her magic there as well.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cut her teeth in Palestine.

KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, cut her teeth in Palestine before she starts on Ngāpuhi. Not putting too much pressure or expectation on her, but I am sure she is up to it.

So the Māori Affairs Committee—we have done a great job, and I do want to acknowledge Jonathan Young and Adrian Rurawhe, Jonathan in particular coming in to sit in on the committee and doing some fantastic work running around in the background, bringing us updates on a regular basis, and also Adrian Rurawhe, of course. It would be really nice to have heard the Māori Party’s take on this bill, but maybe it has given up on Te Tai Hauāuru.

The changes made by the select committee include redrafting the preamble to acknowledge Waitara’s role in the New Zealand Land Wars, remembering that the first land wars occurred up around the Bay of Islands in my neck of the woods, but in the 1860s, Waitara was where the first shots of the—if you could call it—second lot of wars began. As Barbara Kuriger has said, it has been 150 years of angst and pain, and it is great that we are on the cusp of actually resolving this for the tribes of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua. Te Atiawa turned down this opportunity to purchase the lands themselves as part of their claims settlement. They were not happy about having to pay for the return of the land and that it was encumbered with perpetual leases. Now, let us just put that into a modern-day context about having to pay for your own property that was stolen. If someone was to steal my car and the police came along and said “Kelvin, we’ve got your car here, but we want you to pay to have it returned.”, I would not be terribly happy. In effect, this is what Te Atiawa were being asked to do: “Here’s some money, but buy back the land.”

The Manukōrihi hapū and Ōtaraua hapū are being defined as Waitara hapū in this bill. The bill also includes a definition of “Waitara hapū entity”; it is an entity that represents both the Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū. The Waitara River is being defined as “the body of water known as the Waitara River that flows continuously or intermittently from its headwaters to the mouth of the Waitara River on the Tasman Sea and is located within the Waitara River catchment;” and includes all tributaries and streams. We have heard that funds are going to be set aside to tidy up that river, and that is only a good thing. As Pita Paraone has made comments on, there is a fund that has been established to clean up rivers, and he posed the question of whether the Waitara River would be eligible for some of that clean-up money, and whether that would actually free up some of the money for other things.

Land is going to be vested in the Waitara hapū entity rather than Te Atiawa, and there are going to be more complex governance structures and arrangements for expenditure of the relevant income by the New Plymouth District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council. I also take the point that Catherine Delahunty made—that the engagement by the Taranaki Regional Council, in particular, could have been better. There is this reticence by some organisations to engage early with Māori organisations, hapū, and iwi, and if people just put that reticence to the side and genuinely engaged at an early stage, we would probably have these types of issues, these types of matters, dealt with in a much swifter manner. Notwithstanding that, we are where we are now, and it is great to see.

I do not intend to carry on much longer. I am really looking forward, in the next Parliament—assuming that I will be here—to seeing this go through the Committee stage and then the third and final reading. The people of Waitara and all the stakeholders—and I will just read them out: there are the leaseholders in Waitara, there is the Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua hapū, Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, the New Plymouth District Council, the Taranaki Regional Council, and the Waitara community in general, plus all of New Zealand. They have been waiting for way too long for this very complex Waitara situation to be resolved. We are almost at the finishing line, and this is a great thing for all those stakeholders and for the country. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege to breach protocol and give a speech on a bill that I have been sitting on. Next Tuesday is my valedictory, so by the time I get in trouble I will be out of here. It is pertinent to stop and have a look at how the bill got before the Māori Affairs Committee, and we will have various views, but I recall sitting in the Chair there and thinking that this should be coming to the Māori Affairs Committee. I was approached by Jonathan Young, then Nuk Korako, and then a number of others, and we saw the discussions going on around the Chamber. People realised very quickly that this looked and smelled and sounded like a Treaty settlement bill, and the committee that was rightly placed to be able to consider it was the Māori Affairs Committee.

I am glad that that decision was made. Albeit where cognisant of the parliamentary processes, there would have been the fear that if the matter had gone before another select committee where the Government had a majority—it was a local bill, and the convention is that you support local bills right across the House, regardless of whether you are Government or Opposition. It no doubt would have gone through in the form that it was in, and it was in a flawed form. The fact is that every commentator on this bill, everyone who has had a look at it, has recognised that it was not in good nick when it came to the House the first time. Thankfully, there has been an awful lot of work going on to get it in that space.

So we have mentioned a lot tonight, such as—quite rightfully—Jonathan Young, the member of Parliament for New Plymouth, and the work that he has done. We have also quite rightfully mentioned Nashwa Boys sitting up there in the gallery now. It is good to see you there, Nashwa. The work that these two did particularly, and others who moved within those stakeholders, as articulated by Kelvin Davis earlier, is very, very significant, because what I hope it does is it gets across to the public that they can have confidence in this parliamentary process, that everything is not a done deal, and that things can be changed. Over a period in Parliament, you can see a number of occasions when common sense prevails—thank God.

I also want to commend the work of the select committee members, who kept asking difficult questions, not only before the select committee but when we were spoken to by our caucuses. We are in a difficult situation, because the guts of it came along after the settlement with Te Atiawa, so the immediate response from one sector of the community was: “Well, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They got monetary compensation through the Te Atiawa settlement bill—$23 million for not getting the land back. They agreed they weren’t going to get the land back, and here you are trying to give them the land back. Well, how does that work?”. Those stakeholders were concerned because the leaseholders had been told, quite wrongly, at the time that they took out the lease, that they were assured of having an opportunity to freehold their land at some time down the track. They went ahead and went through those transactions of buying that land for their own uses, but many of them—some of them, rather—went out and speculated by purchasing other land in the hope that they would be able to freehold it later on down the track to their own benefit.

I think the saddest thing in looking at this, in considering the bill, was that it set Te Atiawa against the iwi of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua. It is sad when you see families fighting, and that is the situation that we had here. The hapū walked away from the Te Atiawa settlement, and quite justifiably so. But it is great to see that through the work that has been done by those people whom we have mentioned, and the fact that they have managed to sit down with one another, they are now in the space where they are having the opportunity to have a look at something that is much more palatable in reconciling history and also in acknowledging the hurt that still continues today.

The fact is that raupatu lands that were confiscated in the 1800s have had an ongoing and material effect on communities. Living in Taranaki for the last 30-plus years, I can say it is obvious. It sticks out like the proverbial. When you look at colonised people around the world, they are all in exactly the same spaces—overrepresented in areas of health and welfare and employment and prosperity. It sticks with them. These injustices stay with them for generations upon generations.

Another feeling of sadness I have around the hapū, in having to consider this, is that they have not had the time. The benefit of the Treaty settlement process is—because it goes on for an extended period of years, people work through the processes and consider then what the profit and loss is going to be, and end up in a place in their minds where they are ready to settle albeit not rewriting history, albeit understanding they are not going to get back full value and full monetary compensation, but actually getting to a place where they are saying: “Let’s just have this settled.”

That is a process that takes years. But, in this case, the two hapū have had weeks. It was very, very difficult then for them to be able to get that place in their mind, where they can actually say: “OK, we’ve chewed this over and we are going to settle on this.” If they get to that space in the next couple of months, all power to them. The decisions that they make, and hopefully they will make, to proceed with this bill will be something that will not rewrite history. It will not tart it all up and make it something acceptable. But what they will have is tangible assets that will be able to be used for the betterment of the future of them and their families living in Waitara.

Another part of this bill that I am very happy with is the obligation to educate. Earlier on in the select committee, last year, we had a petition from two young girls from Ōtorohanga about having a commemoration day for the Land Wars. This was something that many others had tried, including none other than Dame Tariana Turia, who could not make it work through the House. These two young girls have petitioned the Parliament, and before it had even completed its transaction through the select committee it was agreed that this would happen. Now, as we heard from Pita Paraone, on 28 October this year will be the first recognition of those Land Wars.

I have got to wonder, when I was going through school—quite a number of years ago—why it was that I was learning about the unification of Italy; why I was learning about parliamentary reform in Britain, or the former provinces of New Zealand; and why I never learnt a thing about the Land Wars in New Zealand, some of which we are talking about right here and now. It is good to know that that is going to be a different situation for my grandchildren—hopefully I will have some, one day, in this country and not in Canada—and they will have the opportunity to learn about the history as it is. I never came across any of this until I moved to Taranaki, and as the local policeman in Pātea, started learning a little bit about these things.

People have had land confiscated from them in these horrible Glasgow leases that go on ad infinitum, with 21-year leaps—totally disproportionate leases being charged either far too light if they are well into the 21 years, or far too heavy if they are newly into the 21-year period; never having an opportunity to be able to remove the improvements, and being locked into a situation where they are kept within perpetuity.

Of course, the other problem that we have within this land is harbour board endowment land, kept for a specific purpose. Leases that are charged on harbour board endowment are then going for the betterment of the harbour, not necessarily being spent in there in the past, and never being spent locally in Waitara for the benefit of those people who are living there and have been there for some time.

It is certainly a situation where there is much pleasure in being able to commend this bill to the House. It has certainly been, for me, a great experience to see this piece of legislation transact through the Māori Affairs Committee. I do commend it to the House. I commend it to the people of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua, and hope that it will be passed into law next term. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Māori Affairs Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 93

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

Noes 13

Green Party 13.

Abstentions 12

New Zealand First 12.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill

First Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move, That the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill.

Mangroves and their proliferation around the beautiful coastal shores and tidal estuaries of the Coromandel and the Firth of Thames have been the subject of much debate, discussion, deliberation, and dithering over the last 20 years or so. It is with pleasure this evening that I rise as the member of Parliament for Coromandel, as sponsor, to introduce to the House this local bill on behalf of both the Hauraki District Council and the Thames-Coromandel District Council.

The councils have not taken this step lightly. The two councils are predominantly rural and coastal in their character. Each council has a small ratepayer base, which means limited resources are available to undertake all the functions required of local government. Both councils also have a ratepayer age demographic that is heavily skewed to those in the plus-65-year-old age group. Typically these are people who are often retired and living on fixed incomes, which in turn only emphasises that every dollar taken in rates must be a dollar well and wisely spent on their behalf.

This is a bill that provides for a public process, allowing the two councils to develop an approved mangrove management plan. The councils are merely seeking the ability to create their own plans, because the Waikato Regional Council has spectacularly failed over a long number of years to manage effectively or efficiently the vast proliferation of mangroves within the two councils’ coastal boundaries. This failure has now so compromised the amenity quality of people’s lives that it is at a point where something must be done. I congratulate the councils on taking this initiative and for boldly stepping up where the regional council has so obviously failed.

This bill is not about why the mangroves are there or what has caused their proliferation or where they are. This is a bill merely about allowing the councils to develop their own mangrove management plan. Some years ago the Waikato Regional Council struck a special mangrove removal rate on properties at Whangamata. It has raised, in that period of time, something over $1.5 million, but less than 10 percent of that $1.5 million has actually been spent on the physical management of mangroves. The vast bulk of that $1.5 million has been spent on lawyers, consultants, resource consents, appeals, the writing of reports, and the review of those reports. No wonder the people of Whangamata want action, and these councils—Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel—have, via this bill, found a way through the malaise.

A streamlined, cost-effective, efficient, community-based process is required to ensure the councils are mandated to implement a plan that reduces impediments to human amenity and allows access to improve recreational values. The district councils’ desire to see limited resources more effectively utilised is at the core of this bill. The bill empowers each council to prepare a draft mangrove management plan in relation to the coastal area of its district to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of mangrove vegetation. This is not a bill that is aimed at removing or eradicating all mangroves—that is absolutely not the purpose. I know that there will be some who will criticise it as some kind of mangrove scorched earth policy; that simply is not the case. This is a bill to manage mangroves where they impede human amenity.

Under the bill, a draft plan would be approved through the special consultative process under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The bill provides that the councils, if they agree, may prepared a mangrove management plan in a collaborative way, including by adopting a single integrated plan for both districts should that prove to be a better and more efficient option. The plea that this bill makes is to give the responsible control and management of mangroves to the local communities that know and hold dear their harbours and tidal estuaries without the financial burden imposed by current processes.

The lower Firth of Thames is an internationally significant tidal wetland protected by the Ramsar Convention and is an important wintering ground attracting thousands of Arctic nesting shorebirds such as the bar-tailed godwit and the red knot. The seaward advance of mangroves in that area since the 1940s has considerably reduced the feeding habitat available to the birds. Community concern about the impacts of mangroves dates from the early 2000s, with, notably, the concerted effort since 2005 by citizens of the Whangamata community to address the spread of mangroves and to ensure the restoration of harbour amenity.

People naturally think that mangrove management should not be that hard. To the south of my Coromandel electorate in and around Katikati, Tanner’s Point, and Kauri Point in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area, they seem to be able to manage mangroves without any great issue. North of my electorate—Auckland City—seems to be similarly able to manage them. But throughout the Waikato Regional Council area there seems to have been no political or elected representative will to manage mangroves. It is as if the personal eco-political agendas of those involved have been allowed to get in the way of sensible, prudent, pragmatic management of an issue that, on the face of it, is so simple, but one that has caused so much angst and heartache, to say nothing of the costs to the citizens, ratepayers, and good people of the Hauraki and Thames-Coromandel districts.

Mechanisms for allowing a transfer of authority under the Resource Management Act from regional to district councils do not adequately address the timing and resourcing concerns. The process undertaken so far under the Resource Management Act has been costly, time-consuming, and has simply not delivered outcomes. The Thames-Coromandel District Council has, amongst all our local authorities around New Zealand, the largest proportion of absentee ratepayers. Many of these visitors together with the resident population enjoy the amenity, both ecological and recreational, offered by the peninsula’s various harbours, and estuaries. They are, indeed, a key feature that gives the district its distinct character. This bill is asking the House to let the engaged communities of Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki look after their special harbour and estuarine areas without the burden of excessive process and regulatory costs.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge with thanks the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki district council officers, the mayors Sandra Goudie and John Tregidga, the local communities and citizens of Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki for their relentless focus in mangrove management issues. This is a simple local bill being promoted by two hard-working and caring local district councils, frustrated by years of inaction at a regional level. I am very pleased, as the local member of Coromandel, to be able to sponsor this bill into the House this evening, and I commend it to members for their favourable consideration and support.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Actually, a former member of that Government who is now the current Mayor of Thames-Coromandel District Council made her name on chopping down mangroves, so it is no surprise that this bill has been brought to the House, and it is no surprise in terms of the content of the speech of the local member Scott Simpson that much of the focus was on the efficient allocation of resources—I hear that.

Labour will support this bill, at its first reading, going to the select committee because we know locally this is a contentious issue. No matter what people think about mangroves, whether they should be there or not, how they enhance the ecological environment—the whole approach to a mangrove management strategy and what that means for parts of the coastline holds quite a deep significance for the people who live along it.

I want to focus on a few things. Firstly, the Hauraki Gulf, Tīkapa Moana as it is known to local iwi there, covers about 800 kilometres of coastline. There are strong views amongst iwi in terms of the contribution of mangroves to kai that is often secured from around these areas like pūpū. My daughter loves to go and collect pūpū—it is a sea snail - type of creature—and it is something that, as a small whānau community, they go and gather kai to contribute to certain events. So when I heard comments around the amenity value, one of the local concerns is that the amenity value is, primarily, for recreational purposes.

If that is the case, the issues around opening up more of the coastline for recreational use without the considered impacts on the coastal environments, the birdlife there, the kai moana that is there, become a challenging issue. But that is exactly why we would want this bill to go to the select committee. If you are not from the coast and do not appreciate some of those strong connections that people have to their part of the rohe and what they feel is important in terms of retaining the type of ecological value, then I think people will not really understand how strongly felt some of the concerns are here.

The other point that was well made was with regard to the existing regional council process. It has been long and frustrating and very difficult if, at a planning level, people want to take a more proactive and constructive approach to mangrove management plans. I acknowledge that, and, again, the Waikato Regional Council has done a number of studies on getting the right balance between the various types of amenity values and also the contribution that mangroves make to parts of the coastline where they are suffering greater erosion—that they are a buffer to flooding, that they can actually protect the coastline in some valuable ways.

I am sure that when all the heads around the table with the best evidence are constructing these plans they are trying to manage the balance of these types of interests. One of the things that the current process affords, which this bill does not, is that the plans under the regional council process are certified by qualified experts in this area, and obviously supported and backed up by a lot of research. So this is an important component of the current process that could be considered within the context of this bill and whether or not it could be a helpful addition to the way in which district councils are intended to create plans in the bill.

The other aspect that I want to comment on is local sentiment. It is true that councillors, certainly in the Thames-Coromandel District Council—if I recall, Councillor Simon Friar was championing an approach here. A local survey that was taken among residents at the time had around about 68 percent of the respondents agree to 73 hectares of mangroves in the Whangamata area being removed. So, you know, we cannot ignore the fact that there are very strong local opinions both ways.

I just want to make sure, really, for the most part, that the select committee process will bring the strongly felt views of the community out into the open and that the way in which the community can participate in the method that the bill is proposing can be a public process that assures the public that they can contribute to the decision making. Whether or not there are current aspects of the way in which management plans are, for example, certified by qualified experts could be integrated into this bill—also to get that ecological and recreational amenity balance right. For all those reasons, the bill should go to the select committee.

I wonder whether this bill is being promoted purely for administrative ease, rather than looking again at some of the science and the information that are informing the contribution that mangroves make to our marine coastal environment.

I did not want to take too long a call, because the sooner we can get the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, that we can call for submissions—I know that there will be quite a large number of submissions for the committee to hear. The other key aspect—which my colleague rightly points out—that is omitted in this process is circumventing the Resource Management Act. That, again, becomes quite a large area of consideration, where local voices, again, are not taken into account.

On those key fronts I believe that I have made a number of important points. Tīkapa Moana is the Firth of Thames. The Māori word for mangrove is “mānawa”. A mānawa is a heart, but, in this sense, with the ecosystem, it acts as a filter and it expresses the role of the heart as a filter of the marine environment.

I hope that we can have a pretty sane debate. I know that when the current Mayor of Thames-Coromandel District Council championed this particular issue she was all fired up—on fire and, you know, red hot in all sorts of ways—about this issue, and focused a lot of her efforts and contributions on progressing this debate. She has had her chance, now that she is the Mayor of Thames-Coromandel, and has taken the opportunity to promote a bill of this sort. I do hope that, in calling for submissions, the select committee ensures that people get a good hearing and that the public gets a good chance to air its concerns around achieving the right balance, in terms of mangrove removal, public participation in the decision-making process, and also getting the balance between the recreational and the ecological amenity values right. Kia ora koutou.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill at its first reading. Of course, we are talking about mānawa—Avicennia marina—commonly known as the mangrove. Of course, this is a facilitating bill for the Thames-Coromandel District Council and the Hauraki District Council, and it recognises the scourge of mangroves. It empowers each council to put in place a good management plan to be able to implement some changes—and what a good thing.

I think it is an excellent job by the local MP, the Hon Scott Simpson—and why? Because these mangroves are proliferating. They are growing like triffids—ha, ha! Goody two-shoes will tell us that they are great for the environment, that they create havens for birds, and that they are natural filters of the water. Well, in my view, that is rubbish.

New Zealand’s coastline is infested with Avicennia marina—not like the other 29 species of mangroves. The concept that sedimentation caused by mangroves is beautiful—is a good thing—is, in my personal view, misguided. How can 8 tonnes a year from a mature mangrove forest be a good thing, in terms of building up sedimentation? I have seen it. I have walked through what the sedimentation is below a New Zealand mangrove forest—what it looks like and feels like—and it is a wasteland. It is a wasteland. True mangroves in other areas around the world are like rainforests, but not in New Zealand. The reason why this is is that we only have one species—one species. And that is the trouble. It is a blight, it is monoculture, and it is expanding—partly driven, unfortunately, by fertilisers applied by farmers on their land.

I understand the international significance of the site, particularly near Miranda and the Firth of Thames. It is a wonderful space where we have those wonderful godwits and the red knot birds that come and forage and wade through the water. But that area has been taken over by mangroves. This is what we are trying to do, because it is not only in the Firth of Thames. It is in areas like Mangawhai, Tauranga, Kaipara, and Hokianga Harbour, and in my own electorate in Waiuku.

The difficulty these people find in dealing with these mangroves—in Waiuku, great guys like Ian Scobie and Dave Gribble , and a bunch of farmers took it upon themselves to clear a great area of mangroves—9 hectares initially. They got out there because Ian recognised that he wanted to get his canoe out into the harbour there, and to be able to paddle up and down the Waiuku estuary. As a result, they started to cut through the mangroves and everyone was behind them. But guess what—guess what? The council came and said they could not. They have had a raging battle, with the council trying to impose new conditions on their consents. They have brought in a whole lot of issues such as what it does for birdlife. They talked about a whole lot of birds, but, in particular, the braided bird is one that they believe is absolutely essential.

When you clear mangroves you start to see the shoals of fish coming in. In Waiuku, for instance, they have already had the tern show up. Kingfishers are coming back. White-faced terns—and now, more recently, pied stilts, oystercatchers and, during the summer months, godwits, wrybills, banded dotterels, and red knots—

Denise Roche: Where do they live?

ANDREW BAYLY: —and I know the Greens over here like dotterels, as I do. It is true that it is the hard work of volunteers who are getting out there, like our group in Waiuku, who will be able to make a change, and that is why this is such a good bill. I absolutely commend the work of the member for Coromandel, the Hon Scott Simpson, for bringing this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): As I call Catherine Delahunty, I am just going to lament the lack of Latin in schools in recent years.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Sometimes I think I have heard enough, and then I hear something new. I hear that the colonisation of the coast is being committed by a dangerous, invasive species, and I hear that the Associate Minister for the Environment has put up a bill that suspends the assessment of the environment Acts so that a former vandal who took a chainsaw to a mangrove could satisfy her desire to cut up the coast.

The ecological ignorance that has been displayed in this House tonight is remarkable—it is remarkable. Those members do not understand anything about our coast. They have written a bill without proper scrutiny and without proper process so that they can facilitate people cutting up mangroves—as Sandra Goudie did—as if they are the enemy of the environment.

Mangrove is mānawa—it means heart, as the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said. Why does it mean heart? Because it is the heart of where the fish actually breed. We have a crisis in fisheries because we have destroyed so many areas for coastal fish to breed, and these people want to cut it all up without due process. It is fantastic for them, but all it does is show that National members are the enemy of the environment, and that they allowed their Associate Minister for the Environment to bring this bill to the House is absolutely extraordinary—absolutely amazing. I really find it extraordinary.

I live in the Hauraki—Tīkapa Moana. My family has been there for quite a few hundred years. I know the Gulf and I know the other coasts and I know the people, just like those members claim to. There are going to be many people joining our campaign against this bill because it does not represent the ecological passion that drives our communities up there. The coast is affected not by mangroves, but by poor land uses. So if we want to fix the problems, what do we do? Do we attack the coast with a chainsaw, or do we fix the sediment that is blocking up the harbours and changing areas that were previously open coast? Those members have got absolutely no ecological common sense whatsoever.

They say: “Let’s attack this stuff, get the right to attack it, and then we won’t deal with the land use issues.” We have got some very poorly managed forestry in our area, but these guys never mentioned that, because they do not even know anything about the area. They have got no idea about the lack of buffer zones in forestry, or the way in which particularly the Wharekawa and Whangamata have been affected by poor forestry management, which has led to excessive sediment. If you take away the mangroves, where does the sediment go, people? Into that magical space called away—out into the sea, where we do not have to think about it. If you are a vandal, it does not matter that the ecosystem is intimately connected—land and sea. They will just take out the barrier.

The other thing that is virtually madness is there is this thing they have not heard of called climate change. Do you know what happened—

Hon Simon Bridges: You don’t even have a spokesman.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: We are all spokespeople on climate change, Simon—all of us who understand the crisis. If you take this stuff off the coast, you open the land up to the risks that come with sea level rise and storm surges, and if they knew anything about climate change—which, clearly, they do not—they would realise that the mangroves are a buffer. They are not only a home for fisheries; they are also a buffer.

If you want to modify your environment in some places without a chainsaw, which is perfectly legitimate—you do not have to go in there without the law and attack the coast like a bunch of Visigoths—it would be quite good if you followed the letter of the law, instead of creating laws to undermine it. I have got 27 seconds to point out that clause 5 says: “The mangrove management plan may include any other matter that the council considers desirable or necessary to give effect to the purposes of this Act.” That is vandalism. That is legal vandalism. I know why this is written in here—“any other matter”—and you are going to get one iwi representative on a committee to discuss this?

You guys have got no idea—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, not you. But them—they do not know what they are doing with this bill. It is ridiculous, and we will fight it to the end. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and a privilege to rise in support of the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill in its first reading. I must say that after listening to the member Catherine Delahunty, who has just resumed her seat, it is clear why New Zealand is looking for environmental direction from this Government when, compared with the Opposition, that is all it has to offer.

It is very clear why we now have the Bluegreen platform of providing pragmatic and practical environmental policy, because, for us, we believe that the world operates in a system. What this bill is ultimately underpinned by is the belief that the mangrove is growing out of control in the coastal system. So we are not saying: “Let’s completely eradicate it.” I think the Hon Scott Simpson summed it up very eloquently when he said that it is not a scorched earth policy. It is very much Bluegreen thinking. It is pragmatic and it is practical, and what we want to do is manage the system of mangroves.

I cannot claim to have experienced overgrown mangroves, myself. We do not tend to have them down on the Waimakariri coastline. Probably it is a bit too cold. But it was helpful to have that, I suppose, etymology lesson—well, even probably a slight lesson in Latin as well—from Andrew Bayly, who I think—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No.

MATT DOOCEY: —perfectly captured the history and the background to this plant. I just wanted to add mine, Mr Assistant Speaker, because I did do my research on Wikipedia. In 2000, in the world, the total mangrove forest covered 137,000 square kilometres, and it covered 118 countries. So the mangrove does get around. That, in my calculation, is about two-thirds of the countries. There we go. So that is the mangrove—it gets around. So, clearly, we have to be watching the mangrove, because it does tend to take over.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might even like to refer to the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: As you have, quite rightly, said, Mr Assistant Speaker, I will refer to the bill, because this bill is a local bill, and, in fact, the whole point of a local bill is to connect with local issues. So what we have got here is potentially quite a contentious bill that does need to go to select committee, and I think Nanaia Mahuta clearly outlined the reasons of the two camps. In fact, that is why we have the parliamentary process to send it to the select committee. It is disappointing that the Greens do not believe in that democratic process of sending it to the select committee. Let us hear what the public has to say, and from that we can look at the bill, give it a kick round, and then bring it back in a good shape, and that is perfect for the parliamentary process.

I must say, nearing the end of possibly the last members’ day in the 51st Parliament, I did not think I would be talking about mangroves, so I do hope that I possibly get to talk about them again.

But what we have here is a local bill that is trying to deal with the issue of bureaucracy. We have heard tonight that $1.5 million has already been allocated to the management of mangroves in this area, and that led to only 10 percent of that money being spent on mangrove eradication. So, clearly, we need to address that bureaucracy. We need to cut that red tape. I think that by this bill we can have a mangrove management plan that will be agreed between two councils and that will, ultimately, achieve the end result where people in this area can enjoy their coastline without it being overrun by the mangrove. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Look, it is a very short bill and it is a very simple bill. From New Zealand First’s perspective—we had a bit of a conversation about this in Parliament—we are going to vote to support this bill through to select committee. I cannot help but make the comment, which is slightly off the bill, but is in reply to the last speaker’s comment that we would ask that this bill be voted through to the select committee so that it may be discussed. That comment was from my “twin brother” over there, Matt Doocey, who wears the same haircut as I, and is from Rangiora, as well—a brother from another mother. I have got to say that I wish the same view had been expressed over the Youth Employment Training and Education Bill, which was to let it go through the select committee for analysis, conversation, and discussion.

But that is not what the bill did. So I have to say, Mr Doocey, that I take your words with a handful of salt. Despite what I consider to be a not genuine argument, we will support this bill through to the select committee for that very same reason that you espoused. We just wish that you had showed the same view, taken same approach, to Darroch Ball’s Youth Employment Training and Education Bill, which is something that you promoted in 2008—military training for young people not in education and not engaged in training.

Hon Simon Bridges: Not really relevant.

RON MARK: We digress, but I think it is relevant, Simon—what is your name? Powers? No. What is his name? “Brylcreem”.

Hon Simon Bridges: I don’t know, “Ronald Dark”.

RON MARK: Sorry, it escapes me now. Simon “No” Bridges is interjecting on me right now, but Simon “No” Bridges—Simon Bridges, who built no bridges in Northland—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I think I have given the member considerable latitude for 2 minutes, and I am not sure yet that he has shown any sign of knowing what the bill is or is about. It would be very good if he got to it.

RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “A streamlined, cost-effective, efficient, and community-based process is required to ensure that the councils are mandated to implement a plan that reduces mangrove growth to acceptable levels that will improve any access, recreation, amenity, or ecosystem values.” We understand that. We get that. We agree with that. But we do ask why this bill is restricted to Thames-Coromandel. Thames-Coromandel is not the only place in New Zealand that has mangroves. Thames-Coromandel is not the only place in New Zealand that is struggling with the same issue within its communities. Some of us would say mangroves are not even indigenous and they should not even be here. Some of us might argue that there is no value whatsoever in allowing mangroves to continue. Others might argue that there are other ecosystem advantages to having mangroves continue, but they do need to be controlled.

We would agree with the National Party, and specifically with Scott Simpson, who has done a tremendous job as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee in the time I have worked with him, and who has been rightly elevated in recognition of his work. So we recognise that and we support that, but we would make this proposition: if the National Government is serious about this, then why not expand the bill?

Hon Scott Simpson: Because it’s a local bill.

RON MARK: Well, why not consider further how we might expand that bill? Yes, this is a local bill. The member is quite right. But let us have a wider conversation. I am not an Auckland boy—I am fortunate that I have a partner who is an Auckland girl who would never go back to live there—but I drive through Auckland frequently and I look across those mudflats and the mangroves, and the conversation is clear. How far do you allow those mangroves to spread? I have had people say to me, well, Coromandel is fine, but what about Whangarei? We have got people saying to us right now that it is an issue in Whangarei. We have got people saying it is an issue in Auckland City. We have got people saying it is an issue in other parts of Northland. The question is, if Parliament goes this far to, quite rightly, satisfy the request of a specific district and a specific council, Thames-Coromandel District Council—

Hon Scott Simpson: And Hauraki. Two councils.

RON MARK: —right—then can we not have a conversation more broadly? We will look for that conversation in the select committee phase, but at this point in time we think the bill has merit. The bill should go through to select committee, and we will quite happily support that.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a brief call on the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill. I visit the Coromandel, or actually Thames, quite often. I have family who live up there, and it is hard to believe when you look around that area that back in the 1940s, it was sandy beaches there. It has been taken over by mangroves.

But this bill is not about eradicating all mangroves; it is about management. It is about empowering those councils to be able to manage how mangrove plant plantations are going to survive up in the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki districts. So when some of the Opposition members say that we are going to wipe it out—no. It is called a management plan, and it is a plan that will empower those district councils to be able to manage what they perceive as a weed that is overtaking their shorelines and their beaches and actually interfering with some of the recreational and fishing events in those areas.

I want to thank the Hon Scott Simpson, the MP for Coromandel, for bringing in this bill and for being a voice for the district councils up there on the coast. I am looking forward to it coming to our select committee because I think, as others on my side of the House have said, we need to get it and have a good look at it and listen to some submissions around it, and then bring it back to the House for further readings and for Royal assent.

Without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is really unusual for a member of the Government who is trying to filibuster on members’ bills to not even be able to speak for 5 minutes. I want to first of all acknowledge the member of—

Paul Foster-Bell: She’s not trying to filibuster.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Play the tapes—play the tapes. I want to commend the member Scott Simpson, who has introduced this local bill, and say that I was pleasantly surprised that he seemed to have resolved his differences with Sandra Goudie, the former local member of Parliament and now the mayor. They are working hand in hand, just like that—so close. It is a delight to see central government and local government politicians working so closely together.

I also want to say that I am very suspicious that this local bill has been brought in tonight, and I regret having to say that about the Hon Scott Simpson because I think that for a National Party member of Parliament, he is a jolly fine person, actually. He is passionate about the environment, he works hard, and I think his promotion to Cabinet was well-deserved, but I think that this bill is in the House so that my bill, which would otherwise have been read, is further down the Order Paper. That is why it is a local bill and not, as Ron Mark suggested, a more comprehensive look at whether the Resource Management Act (RMA) is still the most appropriate tool at the moment for dealing with the issue of mangroves across the country.

So that disappoints me. But I have to say that I was really pleased to learn that despite the National Party members saying foolishly, incoherently—and Andrew Bayly demonstrated that again tonight—that they would be voting against my retirement village bill enabling residents to get a rates rebate, which would have been read ahead of this bill, I would have had a majority of Parliament voting for it. I am really pleased to acknowledge that the New Zealand First members, the Green Party members, the Māori Party members, and Peter Dunne would have joined with Labour and would have had my retirement village rates rebate bill passed tonight, had this Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill not suddenly appeared as a pressing local issue from the local member of Parliament, working so closely with his local mayor.

Labour is supporting this bill to select committee. It is a reasonable debate to have. We know that when the mayor was a member of Parliament, she tried to deal with the issue of mangroves restricting the berthing of local yachts in a rather inappropriate way. She took to the mangroves with a chainsaw—that is my recollection—and then said that she hated them all and they should all go. This bill is certainly a more appropriate way of deliberating on the issue than her approach, but I am concerned that this completely puts aside the processes of the Resource Management Act. The National Government has done that far too often over the last 9 years, and I do not think we should continue to do it.

It is really important that local people across the country have their say on this. This is not a Thames-Coromandel issue, even though the instigation of this bill is from that area. We know in this Parliament that as soon as National sees a way of undermining the RMA—if it works here, those members will say “Ah! Great, let’s roll it out across the country.”, and I do not think that is appropriate.

We also know that even though the member introducing the bill described mangroves as though they were sort of climbing in through the window and strangling the local residents, and turning the TV on to another channel—

Hon Scott Simpson: It was him—it was him.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —oh, it was just the member behind you—but, actually, mangroves play a really important role in our ecosystem. They provide habitats for fish, they provide habitats for birds, and they provide habitats for shellfish. The member himself talked about the birds in his area, and I know that he is a committed conservationist and environmentalist, which further added to my surprise that he introduced this legislation.

It is getting near the conclusion of this Parliament’s time, so this bill will not be heard at a select committee prior to the election. I hope that the member reflects on the weakening of the RMA, and on whether this is the best way to progress the concerns that local residents have about the intrusion of mangroves. I think it is better to do it in a more open way. I think it is important to balance what is clearly a commercial pressure against an environmental pressure, and to make sure that in the end we do not do such damage to the environment on behalf of commercial boat owners or developers that we are never able to repair that again. So I am interested in seeing the debate at the select committee after the election.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am making a very brief and, certainly, non-filibustering contribution on this Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill, in the name of my colleague, the very fine member for the Coromandel, the Hon Scott Simpson.

I want to begin by saying mala herba cito crescit—it is an ill weed which grows apace—and mangroves certainly are an ill weed. I spent a good few months in my very first job after school combating the mangrove swamps of Northland on behalf of Golden Bay Cement Works Ltd, and I can tell you they are a noxious weed. They do certainly grow apace, and I think this is a very sensible measure. I want to commend the local member, but also Mayor Goudie and Mayor Tregidga for bringing it before this House.

I would like to see consideration in committee to possibly extend it to other areas where appropriate, but we know that other areas, in many cases—as the member Scott Simpson outlined—are doing a better job, certainly, than those within the Waikato Regional Council area. It is a very good bill, and it deserves further consideration. Thank you.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): It has been very interesting listening to the conversation. The level of ignorance about the ecological and economic values of mangroves has been rather alarmingly on display tonight. This bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a massive step backwards, and it puts aside the protection for our environment that exists in the Resource Management Act (RMA) by overriding the processes that exist for controlling mangroves, to enable, as the bill’s explanatory note says, removing, preventing, controlling, destroying, and disposing of mangrove vegetation.

The attitude of describing mangroves as a noxious weed and something that is going to take over the whole of New Zealand if we are not careful reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the ecological value of mangroves in providing valuable and essential habitats for native fish, for shellfish, and for birds. That includes—and I hope that Scott Simpson is listening here—the banded rail, which has all but disappeared from other areas.

But also, moving on from ecological values, which are indisputable, I also want to touch on the economic value of mangroves. They act as a natural shield against storm tide surges, erosion, and sea level rise. Rushing ahead with allowing the large-scale destruction of mangroves without going through the resource management process is a very short-sighted move that could prove extremely expensive in the long run. Mangroves have proven time and time again that they are extremely valuable protection and defence against storm surges because they dissipate wave energy. Very recently, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment highlighted that the extremely damaging storm surges, which can cause massive amounts of erosion in one storm surge and are currently a once-in-a-hundred-year event, are likely to occur every year with just half a metre of sea level rise. Every year we would have what is currently a once-in-a-hundred-year - level storm surge.

The Waikato Regional Council’s report on mangroves concluded: “The mangrove forest provides a number of ecosystem services, which mitigate the potential coastal erosion and inundation hazards that exist for the low-lying Hauraki Plains.” Think about that. We are already seeing erosion from rising sea levels in many coastal areas of New Zealand, and mangroves actually provide a very valuable soft-level defence. It is absolutely counter-productive to tear out a natural barrier against storm tides and erosion and sea-level rise, when these people will later be crying “Oh, we want to protect our property.”, and they want to build their extremely expensive concrete defences. That does not make economic sense. It does not make environmental sense and it does not make economic sense. If the National Government is serious about planning for climate change it will still regard mangrove swamps as its allies, not as something to be destroyed and wiped out at a potentially enormous economic cost. It is just so illogical.

It also ignores the reason mangroves are increasing and spreading over some areas. It boils down to the fact that the single thing that you could do that would be the most effective at limiting mangrove spread would be to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Why do we have sedimentation? Because of inappropriate land-use practices, inappropriate harvesting of forestry in some places, and overgrazing in others, with increased rainfall events that are washing out far more soil into the bays. All of these factors combined are what are contributing to both the loss of valuable soil and the spread of the mangroves.

But we also need to be seeing that mangroves are economically and ecologically valuable, and the RMA is the place where these processes can be balanced out against each other. We should not be discarding that.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I would like to just commence this reply contribution by thanking members from across the House for their contributions on this first reading of the bill. I was delighted to hear contributions from across the House that, in most cases, I think, understand and get the point of the bill, with the exception of the Green Party contributors, who clearly still do not quite get the purpose of the bill. The bill is aimed at merely managing, providing the two district councils—two district councils—with an opportunity to create their own mangrove management plans. That is simply because the current system has not been able to achieve anything like the outcome that the citizens—the human beings, the people who inhabit the coastal areas around the Thames-Coromandel and the Hauraki districts—need to have to ensure that their amenity values and their way of life are preserved and maintained.

This is a good bill. I wanted to just comment on the contribution of Ron Mark from New Zealand First, because he asked a question about why this bill does not go further geographically than beyond the boundaries of the Hauraki District Council and Thames-Coromandel District Council. The simple answer to that is that this is a local bill, initiated and promoted by those two district councils. If this bill is passed at first reading and it does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, then there will be an opportunity, I would suspect, at that point, for a wider discussion about the bill’s application to district councils and territorial authorities outside the two areas that are promoting the bill.

So just in conclusion, this is a bill that is not about a scorched earth policy towards mangroves. This is about simply giving the two district councils an opportunity to create, through a formal process that will involve public participation and scrutiny, their own mangrove management plans. I think it is a good bill. I am pleased that the two councils have brought it to me to bring to the House and, as the local member for Coromandel, I support it and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill be now read a first time.

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.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction OrderS) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is a bill that has been widely canvassed at the first and second readings and at the select committee stage and the Committee of the whole House stage. There have been no amendments made to the bill since the select committee stage. As has been widely canvassed in the House on previous occasions, it makes a small but useful change to the regime around interim restrictions as part of our censorship law in order to avoid a situation like we had with Into the River, the book that was banned, temporarily at least, for 6 weeks in 2015.

I do not think I should take up any more of the House’s time. I commend the bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is interesting when a member gets up and gives a less-than-a-minute speech in the third reading when I think the members on the other side of the House spent quite a lot of time canvassing the issues in the Committee stage.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s the point.

CLARE CURRAN: Ha, ha! I certainly think, from the Labour Party’s perspective, that this is a small bill. We agree with that. We agree that it has some use. We agree with that, and we support it, but I think it is also important to make a couple of points. One of the points is that given that this may be the member Chris Bishop’s last contribution to this House, I would say to him that if you are going to bring a member’s bill to the House, try to make it count.

He made some points in the first reading about the wider issues around censorship and around the role of the Film and Literature Board of Review and its processes. I think that it would be good for him to reflect on making a more substantial contribution around not just its role in making the interim restriction orders but its role in general, which he actually alluded to in the first reading, and also to the film and classification process in general, which is currently in a situation of being an anomaly in New Zealand, because we have films that are classified under one Act, television programmes that are classified under another, and digital programmes that have no classification regime.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member. While it might not be particularly easy for me to do it, I do want to make clear to the member that what she is asking cannot actually be part of the third reading debate. We are now debating the bill as it has emerged from the Committee of the whole House and the debate in the select committee stage that occurred previously. It is not a general debate on the bill or on the area.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Those points are still quite relevant, and there is still no legislation that applies to them. This is a bill that corrects an anomaly—a very small anomaly—in legislation. Small can sometimes be quite important, and I think that given the fact that it did result in a book that was written for teens, “out of the water”, being banned temporarily and unable to be taken out of the library, it does matter. That does matter.

I do want to acknowledge the fact that the member actually did attempt to address that anomaly. But in addressing that anomaly he did not look beyond, and I think that is—you know, if you are going to come to this House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Just improve the tone slightly, please.

CLARE CURRAN: —it is important to actually think, a little bit, in a big-picture way, because, otherwise, what is the point of being a member of Parliament if you are not trying to make substantive changes? I would advise the member that, if he actually has any future in the Parliament, when he brings a member’s bill he actually seeks to address more than just a tiny little anomaly.

We do support your bill. There has been quite a lot of debate about the bill. There are much bigger issues in New Zealand than the bill that this member has put before the House tonight. It is almost 10 o’clock on a Wednesday evening, and if any members of the public are listening to this debate, they are probably asking: “What on earth?”. But we do support it. We do think that the interim restriction orders under the parent Act did need to be revised. We did support the change. We have questioned the wider issues around classification of content online. We do think that the contesting by Family First, which resulted in this book being banned, was an out-of-date and out-of—you know, in 2017 it is a method that should not be allowed to occur. The decision of the film classification board should have been able to revert back to some sort of existing or previous classification, and that is what this bill, essentially, does.

The upshot of this is that we do support this bill. We are sorry that the member could not have thought in a slightly bigger-picture way about the classification system generally, because the Government has not gone down that path in its 3 years. Looking at the convergence regime, there has been no legislation come from that Government—no legislation in this space at all—which shows that it is a backward-thinking Government, in terms of convergence and the convergence between all the digital platforms.

There is a huge gap in legislation in terms of the classification of content in New Zealand. It is negligence by this Government. At least this member, Chris Bishop, has tried to fill a tiny little gap in legislation. It is a bit sad, but we support it, and we hope that his legacy in this Parliament—well, his legacy in this Parliament is now before the House. I commend this bill to the House.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. Up until this point, New Zealand First has opposed this bill, but we have taken the time, and we have been persuaded by Mr Bishop’s eloquent arguments about why the changes that have been made at the Justice and Electoral Committee have been needed.

New Zealand First, as the responsible, reasonable party that it is, had a wide and varied conversation at our select committee.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 9 AUGUST 2017

(continued on Thursday, 10 August 2017)

Karakia

Karakia

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I ask that we be able to start with a karakia before we begin.

Mr SPEAKER: Would that be appropriate once we have called Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2? The karakia is associated with the legislation?

NUK KORAKO: With the opening of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The start of the day. Leave is sought for that course of action; is there any objection? There is none.

NUK KORAKO: Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, tēnā rā koutou; nā ko Waitaka o tō mātou mātua tūpuna, e huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ko tēnei karakia tīmataka e huihuia tākata. Kia īnoi tātou. “Kei mua Koe i ā mātou mahi katoa, Ihowa, hei tohutohu i ā mātou mahi katoa. Ko Koe anō hoki e whakakaha i a mātou mahi katoa, he mea tīmata, he mea mahi, he mea whakautu i roto i a Koe kia whiwhi ai hoki mātou i te ora tonu i te mea, atawhaitia nei e Koe. Ko Ihu Karaiti nei hoki tō tātou Ariki, āmine.”

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and salutations to you collectively; now Waitaka is our ancestral forefather and so I acknowledge you all throughout this House. This commencement prayer is one for a gathering of people. Let us pray. “Lord, You are before us in all that we do, and will teach us. You will also give us strength in all our work as a thing that commences, operates, and responds through You so that we will continue to receive wellness as well because of Your care. Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord. Amen.”]

Bills

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

In Committee

BARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for both bills in the Committee of the whole House stage to be debated as one question.

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

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will just say something briefly about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 353. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, the committee reported the bill back to the House on 20 March and recommended it be passed without amendment. This SOP deals with minor technical amendments. It is going to make changes to eight clauses and two schedules. Most of the amendments are updates to legal descriptions of certain cultural redress, properties that have been surveyed. The amendments ensure that what is being recorded on computer freehold registers is accurate and the amendments also refer to updated provisions of another Act.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clauses 63, 66, 69, 72, and schedules 3 and 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): As previously advised, this will be taken as one question.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I need to say something about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 354, because it does not deal with just technical matters so I will take honourable members through it. In my second reading speech I noted that the committee reported the bill back to this House on 5 July, and said that the committee recommended that it be passed without amendment. But then we have this SOP. This is a substantive amendment, and it is proposed in order to achieve a partial settlement of Ngāti Pūkenga’s claims in relation to Tauranga Moana.

Ngāti Pūkenga’s settlement, along with other Tauranga iwi and what is known as TMIC, the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective redress deed, was a package to comprehensively settle Treaty claims in the Tauranga region. The SOP is proposed because there are still unresolved overlapping claims issues with neighbouring iwi over the moana, and that has made it impossible for Ngāti Pūkenga to progress with all their claims settled relating to Tauranga Moana. So what this SOP does is it excludes claims relating only to Tauranga Moana. It is an exception to Treaty policy but it is one I am comfortable with because the settlement has been delayed by actions of other parties, particularly in the Waitangi Tribunal, and I am very eager to support Ngāti Pūkenga’s aspiration to settle.

People always ask me, “Will this create a precedent?”, but I am confident that it is unlikely that a precedent will be set, because this is a very complex, and I would go so far as to use that much overused word “unique”, situation. Other iwi with harbour claims, such as Tāmaki Collective iwi have agreed to settle their harbour claims as part of their comprehensive settlement, but the redress will be negotiated at a later date. My intention is to settle claims to Tauranga Moana, including those of other Tauranga Moana and Hauraki iwi, in a stand-alone Tauranga Moana framework bill, once the various disputes between the parties are resolved.

Also, there are a couple of minor points. The SOP also proposes the following: first, to amend the 5-year sunset clause for the transfer of the joint Te Tihi o Hauturu redress to the alternative approach to transfer this property on the settlement date of the last iwi to settle. This change is proposed in order to align this transfer with the approach agreed with Hauraki iwi to the joint vesting of cultural redress. Secondly, the SOP makes a technical amendment to one legal description and there are other consequential changes, including consequential changes following the enactment of the Land Transfer Act 2017.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare, hoi anō tāku i tēnei wā e tuku mihi atu ana au ki Te Minita, mō tana whakamārama mai i te nekehanga o tēnei pepa tāpiri ki te pire, kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te ata nei. Hoi anō, ko tā mātou i tēnei taha o Te Whare e mihi atu ana au, otirā, mātou ki te tū o Te Minita kia anga whakamua ai i ngā take a Ngāti Pūkenga ki roto i ngā take Tiriti, ki runga i Te Moana o Tauranga. Kua kite atu mātou ki roto i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei, i ngā marama, i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei i te āhuatanga o ngā raruraru, ka pā ki ngā iwi ki ngā hapū o taua wāhi rā, nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki ngā panonitanga ki ngā kōrero kua tīnihia e Te Minita.

Kua tāpiri anō hoki e Te Minita ki te pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare, me te kī atu ki Te Minita, tā te mea, kua kī mai ia, ēhara tēnei i te wā tuatahi, arā, he precedence, nē, ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te āhuatanga mō ngā tatūnga kerēme ki mua i te aroaro, kaua ko Tauranga Moana anake, engari, ka whakaaro ake mātou ko Kelvin Davis, ko Adrian Rurawhe, me ngā take e pā ana ki a Ngāpuhi, nē, tā te mea, ka whātoro atu ngā ringaringa o Ngāpuhi ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau? Hoi ano koinei tāku e mea atu ana, āe, he wā tuatahi tēnei mō tēnei tūāhuatanga, ā, ka mihi atu ahau kua whaiwhakaaro Te Minita kia āhua pēnei te haere o te pire e pā ana ki a Ngāti Pūkenga. Hoi anō, ko tā mātau hei kōrero mō te tautoko i tēnei tūāhuatanga ki runga i te rīpoata o Te Hansard i te rā nei, kāti e Te Heamana tēnā koe!

[My appreciation to you, Mr Chairman, and accordingly I acknowledge the Minister for his explanation about the movement of this Supplementary Order Paper to the bill that is before the Committee this morning. Accordingly, we on this side of the Chamber acknowledge him and indeed the stance taken by the Minister to progress matters pertaining to Ngāti Pūkenga with Treaty matters that are upon Tauranga. We have seen in weeks just gone by, and in the months and years just passed, the circumstance of the problems that have affected the tribes and subtribes of that place. Therefore I commend the changes to the comments made by the Minster.

The Minister has also added to the bill that is before the Committee, and I say to the Minister at the same time, because he said to us, this not the first time; in other words, it is not a precedent, OK? I think about the circumstance relating to claim settlements in the future, not just one solely for Tauranga but we and Kelvin Davis and Adrian Rurawhe think about matters relating to Ngāpuhi, OK, because Ngāpuhi’s hands reach out and right into Auckland. And so this indeed is why I have been saying, yes, this is a first time for this kind of thing, and I do commend the Minister’s thoughtfulness that this bill relating to Ngāti Pūkenga should go somewhat like this. And accordingly, we should be talking about supporting this kind of thing in the Hansard report on this day, and so enough, and thank you.]

KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): In English, I would like to endorse what my colleague Peeni Henare has said in acknowledging the Supplementary Order Paper that Minister Finlayson has spoken about and acknowledging the complexities of overlapping claims and interests. As Peeni did say, up north, where he and I both come from, as well as Adrian Rurawhe and Pita Paraone—

Peeni Henare: And everyone else.

KELVIN DAVIS: —and everyone else, indeed—we are going to have similar issues when Ngāpuhi settle, and, in terms of the precedent, I agree entirely with the sentiments of the Minister. So with that, we will not drag this part of the Committee stage out any further, other than just to say that we acknowledge what the Minister has said.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is a privilege and an honour to be able to stand here in the Chamber and to be able to endorse and support the passing of the Committee stage of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon Members: It’s Ngāti Pūkenga.

RON MARK: Oh, Ngāti Pūkenga—you have moved on from there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, we are on the second bill.

RON MARK: Well, I just wanted to do that anyway, mainly because all my whanaunga are up there in the gallery. I would just blend into that, then, the endorsement of comments that have already been made, because those same comments for this bill are reflected in the bill that, clearly, has just progressed before I walked in the door.

The issues that arise from those negotiations—having been the lead negotiator in a Treaty settlement—are very difficult and can be quite vexed. I would hope that for all the settlements that are progressing through the Committee today, and particularly those that relate to myself, those issues that stressed and troubled respective negotiations—not just those overlapping with other iwi, but internally, within the hapū, that took so long to be negotiated through—are finally resolved and settled between them. From here, once the bill goes through its third reading and is passed and is enacted, I hope that all involved through those very difficult negotiations are then able to look at it with new eyes as an opportunity now to work together and work collaboratively for the betterment of all and to maximise the strength that the settlement brings to them all.

I want to acknowledge the work that goes on behind, and I see Rick Barker sitting over there as a Crown negotiator, a former MP whom I worked very, very closely with. My experiences on the Rangitāne settlement, I have no doubt, will be the same experiences as for those who are negotiating on this settlement, as well. I just want to put on the record that I acknowledge that work, acknowledge the difficulty under which it was done, acknowledge the commitment of all those who were involved, including the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Office of Treaty Settlements staff. I am looking forward to seeing these bills progress through the third reading and on to enactment.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. I would just like to take a brief call in support of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 354. I live in the Hauraki and have many friends in Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia, and I often think, when I stand on these bills, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, as a Pākehā.

I can make no judgment about many of these issues, except to say that time is an important aspect of settlements, and Ngāti Pūkenga have waited a long time, as have many others. We are here in this House to try to do justice, and part of doing justice is to expedite the settlement so that the people can have at least some redress; it is never full, it is never final, from the Green Party point of view. But we want to support the SOP and recognise that there are other issues that need to be worked through and played out in the rohe of Tauranga Moana.

We are really here just to support what the people want, and that is not a simple thing. It is not simple for them, because of the history of this country and what has been done through colonisation, but we recognise that the Minister is always looking for creative solutions, and this is a way in which these people who have come so far today—both literally and in terms of time—want to see this go ahead, so we support them. Kia ora.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and the following amendments in his name to clauses 13A and 106, be agreed to:

in clause 13A(1)(a)(i), delete “Framework”; and

in clause 106(1), replace “register” with “record of title”.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill with amendment and the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. E Te Mana Whakawā o Te Whare tēnā koe, e ngā hoa mema, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou Kurahaupō waka me ngā uri o Hāmua rāua ko Rangiheuea, e karanga ana tonu te huia i roto i ō koutou ngākau maha, rau rangatira mā, ā, tēnei mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you Mr Speaker, and salutations to you collectively fellow members. Acknowledgments to you the canoe of Kurahaupō and the descendants of Hāmua, and of Rangiheuea, the call of the huia continuous to summon within the hearts of your vast number, esteemed ones of a hundredfold. So I pay a tribute to you collectively. Greetings, accolades, and congratulations to all of you.]

Can I begin by extending a very warm welcome to the members of Rangitāne, who have travelled from Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and from further afar to witness the third reading of this bill. This is a hugely significant day for Rangitāne and for the Crown, and I am pleased that we do not have to wait any longer to see the third reading of this bill.

Today is actually a very important day because we settle the Treaty grievances of the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, but I am conscious, having been Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for almost 9 years, that during my period we have also settled the claims of Rangitāne in the Wairau and, of course, over the hill, Rangitāne in the Manawatū. I have to say that over the years and throughout all these negotiations, I have encountered the same drive, determination, and principled approach to negotiations in all Rangitāne groups. Although, I have to say, the sense of humour exhibited by a certain person in Wairau is unique—Richard Bradley’s form of humour is not replicated across other parts of Rangitāne. You are all very, very worthy descendants of Whātonga. Just before I came down here I was having a look at a book by Jock McEwen, the former Secretary of Māori and Island Affairs, who had a very special affection for Rangitāne and wrote that wonderful text in 1986 that tells the story of Rangitāne and its interactions with various iwi over the centuries.

Can I acknowledge those who have suffered the grievances and those who obviously cannot be with us today but began this journey many years ago—obviously, they are in our thoughts, as they are in the thoughts of all of us whenever we have a third reading. To those of you who have worked so hard to make today possible, I offer you my most sincere thanks. Throughout the negotiations, the negotiators for Rangitāne displayed great commitment, dedication, and high standards, and, I have to say, cut to the chase on the big issues very, very quickly. I want to acknowledge the lead negotiator, Jason Kerehi, the trust negotiation team—Mavis Mullins, Richard Jones, Tīpene Chrisp, and chair John Sproat for their very astute oversight of the settlement. I acknowledge all of you for your hard work and your commitment towards a lasting settlement.

I also acknowledge, as I always do, the various Crown agencies and the regional and district councils for their work. I thank the district councils, who have been very helpful during the negotiations, and have actually made some of the redress possible.

The journey to settlement started in the 1980s, when Mānahi Paewai lodged Wai 166, and Jim Rimene and others lodged the Wai 175 claim. Tribunal hearings were held in 2004 and 2005, and the Wairarapa ki Tararua report was released in June 2010. From this point on, Rangitāne adopted a pragmatic approach to negotiations. The mandate was recognised in October 2011, terms of negotiation were signed in August 2012, and an agreement in principle was signed a couple of years later. Throughout the negotiations, the iwi expressed their desire to reach a just and durable settlement swiftly, so that they could start growing their assets for the benefit of their people. We all know that Treaty negotiations take some time, but we are finally here today—almost a year to the day since we signed the deed of settlement on that very wet Saturday morning, not far from Dannevirke.

Can I now set out the key aspects of the past relationship between the Crown and Rangitāne—as, obviously, I want this to be in the permanent record of the House. From the 1840s Rangitāne were among those who welcomed Pākehā to the region and leased land to settlers. The Crown applied pressure on Wairarapa Māori to end the leases and instead sell their land to the Crown. When purchasing land, the Crown led the iwi to expect that substantial benefits would accrue. In the course of time, however, Rangitāne did not experience many of these benefits nor the prosperity that they had reasonably expected from settlement in their region. The Crown also failed to survey or protect from alienation a number of reserves that had been promised. It is such a familiar account, which repeats itself time and time again.

Throughout the 19th century the Crown continued to acquire areas of land. Communities resisted land sales and fought the breakdown of tribal structures through a number of initiatives, including parliaments and, indeed, also an appeal to the Privy Council, but to no avail. By 1910 only 10 percent of the traditional rohe remained in Māori land title, and by 1940 that figure had dropped to an appalling one: 3.5 percent. Throughout this process, Rangitāne lost many of its traditional food resources and taonga. The environment, particularly lakes and rivers, suffered degradation in favour of economic development. Being virtually landless by the 20th century, compounded with pressures of social deprivation, urbanisation, and assimilation—these all had a dramatic impact on Rangitāne, particularly as Rangitāne communities struggled to maintain their homes, customary knowledge, and language.

The loss that has been suffered can never be fully compensated for by the Crown. Much of what was lost simply cannot be returned. However, the people of Rangitāne have graciously accepted the redress contained in the settlement and I acknowledge their generosity in doing so. I think this settlement will contribute to reviving their Rangitānetanga.

A very critical aspect of the settlement is the Crown apology. Through the settlement and apology, the Crown seeks to restore its honour and atone for its wrongs to Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-ā-rua, by easing the burden of grievance that has been carried on for generations. This is of huge importance if we want to develop a new, Treaty-based relationship.

Another aspect of the redress is the vesting in Rangitāne of two reserves at Pūkaha and their subsequent gift back to the Crown, or the people of New Zealand, and the overlay classification. This remains one of the last significant stands of native trees, from the great domain of Whātonga, named by your tupuna as he was travelling up the Manawatū River. The redress acknowledges the special relationship that you have with this area, and it symbolises the partnership that exists between the Crown and Rangitāne.

You have stressed the importance of a place to stand that you can call your own, and the settlement includes the vesting of eight sites of huge significance to Rangitāne. The other important point that I wish to stress is the issue of the lake. It is good to see Mr Mark in the House today, because he, as a former negotiator for Ngāti Kahungunu, is acutely aware of the outline of the redress there. The bed of Lake Wairarapa will jointly be held with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Te Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua.

It is very good day for Rangitāne, and I very much look forward, as I am sure Mr Mark does, to that day in the very, very near future—hopefully by the end of the year—when the deed of settlement can be signed with Ngāti Kahungunu, and then it will be a new dawn for both these great iwi in the Wairarapa.

Today is about acknowledging the past and looking forward to the future. Everyone can be, I think, very pleased with what has happened. It has been a long journey but a worthwhile journey. I thank the negotiators, once again. I thank Mr Barker, who has been the chief Crown negotiator—a very good fellow and a very hard worker. I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. It is a great day today. It is a great day, not because Labour has gone up 10 percent in the polls or because the leader is now neck and neck with the Prime Minister, but because we are here, honouring the passing of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill. I am very honoured to lead Labour’s part in supporting this bill.

“Tini whetū ki te rangi, ko Rangitāne ki te whenua”. Ko Kurahaupō te waka, ko ngā uri whakaeke o Whātonga, nō reira, ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, e koro mā, nau mai, hara mai, nau mai, hara mai, nau mai, hara mai.

[“Like the multitude of the stars in the sky, so is Rangitāne on the earth.” The canoe is Kurahaupō, the descendants are of Whātonga, so to my esteemed ones and others of a hundredfold, the elderly women and menfolk, welcome and come hither, welcome and come hither, welcome and come hither.]

It is indeed a privilege—as all Treaty bills in this House are, particularly at the third reading—to stand and honour what has transpired here today. No better do I want to place on the record than the history of Rangitāne. Rangitāne’s story begins with the arrival of the Kurahaupō waka. One of the principal chiefs aboard this waka was Whātonga. His descendants eventually migrated south from Māhia Peninsula, to settle much of the lower North Island and the top of the South Island. The tribes associated with this waka included Rongomaiwahine, Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi, Rangitāne o Manawatu, Ngāti Apa, Muaūpoko, Ngāi Tara, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Tū Mata Kōkiri.

Whātonga moved to what we know as the Hawke’s Bay area and built a pā, which he named Heretaunga. This later became the name adopted for the larger Hawke’s Bay area. Oral tradition speaks of Whātonga embarking on a journey of discovery, after displeasing his wife Hotuwaipara. She had cut her hand on a nohu, a rock cod, that he had caught on a fishing venture. This incident led to their first son being named, in remembrance of the event, Tara-ika, meaning fish spine. Whātonga’s journey brought him to the Wairarapa for the first time. He settled for some time at Rangiwhakaoma, Castlepoint, where he built a pā, called Mātiriē or Mātira, which was situated where the current lighthouse stands.

From here he journeyed down to Whanganui-a-Tara, up past Kāpiti Island, and Horowhenua, before moving inland, up the Manawatū River, and Te Āpiti, Manawatū Gorge. It was at this point that he first laid eyes upon a vast virgin forest that stretched beyond his view, filled with giant native trees. It was of such splendour that he gave it his own name, Te Tāpere Nui ō Whātonga, or the Great Domain of Whatonga. It is from this once great forest that Pūkaha / Mount Bruce, remains as one of the last significant stands of native bush.

Whātonga had two sons to two separate wives and it was the descendants of these two half-brothers that eventually spread to occupy the lower North Island, or Te Upoko o Te Ika a Māui. The first-born son was Tara-ika, known more commonly as Tara. Tara gave rise to the tribe known as Ngāi Tara that lived for many centuries in the Wellington and West Coast areas. Tara gave his name to the Wellington Harbour, which is known as Te Whanganui-a-Tara or Great Bay of Tara. His name is also commemorated in the Tararua mountains that divide the Wellington region, and is taken from the saying “Ngā waewae e rua ā Tara”, or “The spanned legs of Tara”, meaning that his people had a foothold on either side of these ranges.

The second son of Whātonga was Tautoki, born to Reretua. Tautoki gave birth to a son called Tānenuiārangi, otherwise known as Rangitāne. Rangitāne had two wives. His first wife Mahue bore a son called Kōpūparapara, and it is from this ancestor that Hāmua is derived. Four generations after Rangitāne came Hāmua. Hāmua became the eponymous ancestor or originator of the Ngāti Hāmua hapū, which was and remains the paramount hapū of Rangitane-o-Wairarapa. Ngāti Hāmua has survived through to today with other Rangitāne hapū to remain the tangata whenua o Wairarapa.

Of course, Rangitāne is not the only iwi to lay claim to the Wairarapa. Ngāti Kahungunu shares the role of tangata whenua in the Wairarapa. Ngāti Kahungunu hapū trace their lineage back to the Tākitimu waka that also arrived at Te Māhia some time after the Kurahaupō waka. Over time these people moved into the Wairarapa area, from Heretaunga, and integrated with the Rangitāne hapū. Today many of the Māori people living in the Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua area can trace their whakapapa or lineage back to both these tribes.

I have stolen that introduction from the website of Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, so ngā mihi ki a koutou. I read it to inform and share in the House the connection between Rangitāne and Kahungunu. I want to share a story of my grandmother. Some of our people in the audience will know an auntie of mine, Kahu Pene. Many years ago, before my auntie passed, she was going to another one of these many hui that we have back home, between Rangitāne and Kahungunu. So she picked up my grandmother, Ruru Heta Robin, thinking that she had my nan’s votes when it came to voting for Kahungunu. To her dismay, at the hui my auntie told me that when it came to voting, my grandmother voted for Rangitāne. She voted for Rangitāne. That, to me, was a reminder of the kohutanga that we have between Kahungunu and Rangitāne. To my kinsmen and kinspeople and our iwi who are in the audience today, I mihi to you all for being here and witnessing this historic moment.

I will not transcend what the Minister ably talked about, in terms of the package. All I wanted to raise, as I did in the second reading—I notice the Minister did ask me to stand during the Committee stage—was the report that came back from the select committee. That talked about the shared redress and whether that has been taken care of. I leave that there, not to disrupt the day but just to acknowledge that there was a report that came back from the select committee that mentioned that. I did not believe that it needed to be changed within the bill, but it was definitely a question, still left unanswered, about the crossover shared parts between Rangitāne and their neighbouring iwi. Maybe the chairman or members on the opposite side can shed some light on that.

In the closing moment it is important to acknowledge absolutely the hard work, first and foremost, of the iwi—for your perseverance in keeping faith with this process. Being reduced from 100 percent landownership to 3 percent is unbelievable. Time and time again we hear the same stories in this House, that iwi, in good faith, entered into agreements with our early settlers and the promise for return, and at the end of the day we are left landless—we are left landless. Three percent is all that was left.

I want to acknowledge the iwi for their patience—for the original claimants Jim Rimene, Manahi Paewai. I want to acknowledge the negotiators Jason Kerehi, Mavis Mullins, Richard Jones, Tīpene Chrisp, and of course I want to acknowledge the Hon Rick Barker, the Crown negotiator here, the officials, the Minister, and of course the hard work of the Māori Affairs Committee and the many submitters who submitted throughout this process.

It is time for Rangitāne—a period of reconciliation for yourselves between the Crown and iwi, hopefully with iwi to iwi, some reconciliation. It is time to reset and it is definitely a time to regain the mana that we have paid over these years and years as Rangitāne people.

Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, otirā, ngā iwi, ngā whanaungatanga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, Mr Assistant Speaker, I acknowledge you collectively, but, at the same time, accolades and well done to you collectively, and to all of us.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnei te mihi ki te waka o Kurahaupō, ki ngā uri o Whātonga, nō reira, mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa e huihui tākata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I greet the Kurahaupō canoe and the descendants of Whātonga. Therefore bring forth your learnings to the policy that people come together for. Congratulations and well done. I acknowledge you all.]

I take great honour and pride in being part of the third reading of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill. It is always a momentous occasion in this House when we can tautoko our Treaty settlement through its final stage and launch an iwi into the next stage of their history and of their development.

But before I talk about the future, I want to reflect on the past. The future is important. We see here today the rangatahi of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā. Over 200 of you have come here for this momentous occasion. But the future is what the money, the commercial redress, is about. It is important to the people, as I said, especially the rangatahi of Rangitāne, in that there is an economic base provided here for the iwi to deliver better opportunities for its people in the future.

But I think what is more important here—and I remember the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations reflecting on this in his first reading speech. The Minister said: “The thing that is most meaningful to iwi is the acknowledgment of their history through the cultural redress in their settlements.” I know this from my own experiences in Kai Tahu. Kai Tahu have done great things with their financial settlement, and I have been proud to be part of that important work that is happening at home. But when we received our settlement, the first thing on our minds was the acknowledgment, first of all, of our history—the cultural redress that gave us back some of our connection to our lands and our taoka in the heartfelt apology that was delivered by the Crown.

Rangitāne were one of the iwi that actively welcomed Pākehā to their rohe. They adapted quickly to the European style of commerce and benefited from leasing land and trading with the settlers. But, as in so many other areas of the country, the Crown put a stop to this mutually beneficial relationship and insisted that Rangitāne could sell their land only to the Crown. Through the various means of applying pressure and defrauding Rangitāne, the Crown acquired huge swathes of land and broke the promises it had made to Rangitāne to provide them with substantial reserves and social benefits like better health and education. Rangitāne had land the Crown wanted, and trading with the Crown and with settlers should have given them great prosperity. Instead, they were left landless with none of the resources that would have allowed them to build the prosperity for themselves.

This is a very brief summary of Rangitāne’s history with the Crown. There is much more that happened, but, in a nutshell, it is a familiar story of an iwi that wanted to engage positively with the Pākehā settlers, and a Crown that took advantage and gave Rangitāne reason to regret ever welcoming Pākehā to their rohe. That is the history the Crown has now apologised for.

Rangitāne now looks to a future in which they can be full and welcome participants in a society that treated them originally as second-class citizens for so long, a future in which Rangitāne have the economic base to establish themselves as full participants in their local economy and in the wider Māori economy as well, and a future in which their people can expect greater opportunities to get ahead.

I want to acknowledge all of those from Rangitāne who are here today, and I acknowledge those iwi members who will be watching this debate far from this House. As MPs, most of us only really get to be involved in the Treaty settlement process here in Parliament as we carry out the formalities of giving legal effect to the settlements that have been negotiated by others. In saying that, it has often reflected many years of heartache, and I know this particular settlement has—the many years of heartache of fighting for justice and of hard work on the part of many who have passed on into the long night and many who are here today.

I acknowledge Rangitāne’s forebears who have worked to bring it to this point. I acknowledge the negotiators, the ones whom I actually, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, had direct engagement with. Rangatira like Tīpene Chrisp, Mavis Mullins, Jason Kerehi, and Tīpene—if I could say—that after working on behalf of the Government, on behalf the Crown, on so many other Treaty settlements, it must be a proud moment for you to now be seeing this one be passed to the benefit of your own people. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koe. I also acknowledge the Hon Rick Barker, who negotiated on behalf the Crown for this settlement. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe.

To Rangitāne I say that today marks the end of one journey but the start of another. You have shown great generosity by accepting a settlement that is symbolic and that provides you with greater opportunities but that cannot and does not compensate you for the losses you suffered due to the past Crown actions. Your leaders now have the huge responsibility of making sure this settlement benefits your people, and they will—and they will.

With that, today here marks the final reading before the Royal assent when this becomes law—and it is at that point that the iwi can then move on and be very much involved in their development for those future people: those rangatahi whom we see here and those future generations. In all of that, it comes back down to one thing, though: again, just to reiterate, it is not about the money; it is actually about the apology. It is actually about the historical account of what happened, and then from there it gives the opportunity to move forward. E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Huri noa i Te Whare e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, and I do indeed commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te ’hare, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, ngā whānau, ngā hapū o Rangitāne o Wairarapa, o Rangitāne whānui anō hoki, o Rangitāne o Tāmaki-nui-ā-Rua, anei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai! Ā, otinoa, e tika ’oki kia tuku mihi atu ki a koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, i tuku atu i Te Reo ’hakamoemiti i tēnei ata, ā, māku e tautoko taua whakamoemiti, otirā, ngā mi’i katoa i roto i Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but, at the same time, it is fitting that I greet you all, the families and subtribes that belong to Rangitāne of Wairarapa and broadly as well, and of Dannevirke. Here I am, welcoming you all. Come hither, come forth, pay homage. Accordingly, it is right as well that I acknowledge you, the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, who expressed words of praises this morning. I will endorse that expression of thanks but, at the same time, all those expressed in this House. Greetings to us all.]

It is a real privilege to stand and speak to the third and final reading of this settlement bill. It is always great to come to the House and talk on settlement bills, because of what they represent. It has been a long and arduous journey to get to this day, and I want to acknowledge that. I too, as I did in my second reading speech, want to acknowledge all of the kuia, koroua, matua, and the young people, the rangatahi, who are here today to witness this special occasion—and in particular the young people, who inherit not a burden of carrying the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi today but, from today on, now carry the legacy of the hard work of their tūpuna. I want to acknowledge you all because settling this bill today, and these claims, is all about the future, as other colleagues in the House have said. It is a particularly special day for the young people, and I am sure it is a day that you will all remember.

I want to also mention taku kuia, Te Haerenganoa, “Nanny Noa”, who is amongst you all today—tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe e te kuia. I want to mention her because she was here 82 years ago on a very special day, so she has returned here to see the passage of this bill. She was at the meeting between Michael Joseph Savage and Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana. That was a special day as well, and I hope that the legacy she has carried for the last 82 years is exactly the same as what you all carry for the future generations as well, so that the stories you tell your future generations are the same ones that she has told me and my generation. So mihi ana ki a koutou katoa.

This is indeed a very special settlement, as all settlements are, and I want to in particular acknowledge the leaders of Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā to the post-settlement governance entity, who will have the honour and privilege of taking this settlement forward. I want to acknowledge the chair of the settlement entity, Mavis Mullins—tēnei ahau tuku mihi atu ki a koe—and also acknowledge that she is only the second Māori woman to be nominated and placed in the New Zealand Business Hall of Fame. I think that needs to be acknowledged. I also think that with that calibre of people on that entity, the settlement and the settlement assets are in safe hands, and I am certain that that asset will grow so that the legacy that will be carried by the future generations will indeed be a very strong one.

I want to also acknowledge the wide range of cultural reconnection mechanisms within this Treaty settlement. I am bound to talk about the responsibility that the iwi will carry in terms of the rivers that are very important to Rangitāne, and the important part that Rangitāne representatives will play in ensuring that their voice is heard when it comes to matters pertaining to the Manawatū River and other important cultural redress items within this settlement.

One other thing that I want to endorse and to support was the sentiments expressed by the Minister about the apology. I think it is a very important aspect of every settlement that comes through the House. I think it is incumbent upon all future Governments to ensure that the apology is real and that we make certain that Rangitāne have the opportunity not only to be consulted on important things that come through this House but the opportunity for their voice to be heard in this House. I want to lay down my commitment to make sure that we do that and that we do that with rigour.

I guess that is part of the legacy that will be carried forward by future generations—that it will be part of that legacy that they will have to uphold to make certain that this House, that this Parliament, makes certain that that apology is real by never ever breaching the Treaty again because, without that, that apology is diminished.

Nō reira e tino tautoko ana ahau i ngā āhuatanga katoa kei roto i te pire nei.

[Therefore I truly endorse all aspects that are in this.]

I think that all of the aspects of the settlement are important and probably ought to be equally important to all citizens of New Zealand because, as I have said before in this House, I want to thank Rangitāne for their generosity in accepting this settlement, because, as we all know, this settlement—like every other settlement—is redress, not compensation. So that generosity needs to be acknowledged—that Rangitāne have accepted this package of redress mechanisms, to move forward into the future, despite the fact that the actual financial burden that has been carried by the iwi is not really reflected in the amount that has been paid out through this settlement.

So I want to thank you all your generosity, and I wish you all the best for the future so that that legacy will be carried by the future generation and they can stand tall and strong for their future generations.

Nō reira koinā taku kōrero atu ki Te Whare nei i tēnei rā e pā ana ki tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So that indeed is my contribution today to this House, on this day, about this bill. Therefore, greetings to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. E koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou. E ngā mātua, e ngā mokopuna hoki, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the elderly men and womenfolk and to esteemed ones and others of a hundredfold, acknowledgments to you collectively. To the parents and grandchildren also, a huge appreciation to you.]

I stand here proud as punch today for my whānau of Wairarapa and Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. I stand here proud as punch because today we finally get to the third reading of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill. As many of my colleagues in the House have expressed today, it is the beginning of an amazing future for my whānau in Wairarapa and Tamaki nui-ā-Rua.

It is an emotional day, because I have waited for a wee while for this day to come, and to sit there with my mum in the gallery, and her kuia, Hinerau, as well. She is the last kuia for Wairarapa to witness this day, because so many of my aunts and uncles who were part and parcel of getting this bill to where it is today have gone on, passed over, and I am sure their wairua sits in this House and watches the proceedings as we move forward.

I want to acknowledge Jason Kerehi. I am sure that it has not been a very easy task for you, Jason, to be able to hear and listen to the whānau as they all started to contribute to the things that you needed to talk to the Crown about for redress for Rangitāne o Wairarapa. I want to also acknowledge Rick Barker, as the Crown negotiator, and I am sure, Rick, at many times many people tried to talk to you about some of the things that they wanted in the bill. I am sure of that. I got plenty of phone calls myself to have a talk to you about a few things in this bill and so I just want to say well done. Well done to both of you for getting the bill this far.

I want to add my acknowledgments to Mavis and to the rest of the board members and the committee members. I am proud of you, Mavis. You have done our iwi and Māori women proud in every aspect of the work that you do in representing us and the iwi. I want to acknowledge Tīpene Chrisp and John and Richard for the work that they do on the committee. I also want to acknowledge our Mikaere Kāwana who was, I think, very influential in the actual waiata of Tū Mai Rā and the waiata that comes with this bill. Mikaere is a very talented composer of waiata for Wairarapa and I am very proud to have him as part of our family, married to my cousin Ērena.

As I said, I am very proud to stand here. I am humbled, because my whānau in the Wairarapa are the Karaitianas and the Rīmenes and the many others, but it is through the Karaitiana whānau that I come into Wairarapa, through my mum. I want to also acknowledge my long-time friend, who—we have walked through many, many journeys, her and I, and I remember when the first negotiation meeting started: with the iwi, she rang me up and she said: “Are you coming to the meetings to do with our bill?”. And I said to her “Where is it and when is it?” and “I don’t know whether I can.” That woman is sitting in the House. She has been in here for all of the readings and her name is Oriana Paewai and she sits up there in the gallery, and I want to acknowledge you, Oriana. She has been the one who has been keeping me up to date when I was not home to be part and parcel of whānau negotiations.

I want to say to Rangitāne Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua—the generosity of being able to gift Pūkaha / Mount Bruce back to the people of New Zealand. It is a beautiful reserve and I am sure that in times to come many other New Zealanders and tourists will come to understand the beautiful gift that you have given back to this country and to the world.

So my kōrero is not going to go on much longer because I am very emotional about today because it is a special day for everybody in the House, and especially for the mokopuna sitting up there in the gallery. This is your future. This is something that you can have input into how you want your lives to reflect, through this bill and through all of the things that are coming back to Rangitāne. And I hope that you take it and you grab it with both hands and you help to set the future for you and yours because that is what our elders up here have done. They have come so far, and now you, mokopuna—it is now your turn to step up and help to shape the future of Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Tamaki nui-ā-Rua. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. He mihi nui ki a Ngāti Rangitāne ki Wairarapa me Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, hara mai, ki Te Whare Pāremata, ngā kuia, ngā koroua, ngā whaea, ngā mātua, ngā rangatahi, me ngā tamariki, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you, collectively, the House. A huge acknowledgment to you, Rangitāne of Wairarapa and of Dannevirke; accolades to you collectively. Welcome, come hither to Parliament, the elderly and menfolk, the mothers, the fathers, the young people and the children. Greetings to you collectively.]

It is very humbling to stand here before you today and speak briefly on your claim, which I had not had the privilege of working on, but we are privileged to support it. Te Rōpū Kākāriki—the Green Party—would like to acknowledge your struggle, your effort, and your achievement in reaching this day. A third reading is always a moment in the history of this country, a moment of power, and a moment of challenge, and we really, really believe that every generation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi has a right to raise issues and a right to work on these issues. We do not believe in “full and final”; we actually believe in the ongoing relationship laid down by that covenant, so that your rangatahi and tamariki can keep upholding the aspirations of your people through Te Tiriti and so that we on the Crown’s side, or taha Pākehā katoa, tauiwi katoa [the totally European, colonists’ side] have a permanent responsibility to listen to you, to whakarongo—always. Not settled; honoured. Honoured; not settled. This is a settlement and it is a valuable thing, but it is our honour that is the most valuable, and we need to honour Te Tiriti and honour your rights to continue to challenge us to make justice a lived reality throughout the entire history of our time and our future.

Returning to this bill, I just want to acknowledge that wealth is a curse. Natural resources—the wonderful natural resources of your tūpuna, in a sense, attracted the worst fate for you, because those beautiful awa in the Wairarapa and those beautiful, magnificent ngahere are only like a story or a dream. The abundance that was yours to feed your people and to live in those relationships—the rivers are still there, but I work on rivers and I know the state of your rivers. I know what is being done and what comes down and what the consequence is of stripping the land of its trees—the domain of Tāne, the domain of wealth, of rongoā, of kai, and of whakapapa. All of those things that have been taken away are interrelated in terms of the land and the water and the people of the land. So, the uri of Whātonga, I commend you for your endurance—for your remarkable endurance.

When it comes to redress—it is an interesting word, “redress”—I acknowledge that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee said it is not about the money, and I understand exactly what he means. But, you know, it is funny when the Crown says that, because, actually, if you do not have any money, it is about the money, and that is part of it. It is not the whole, and it is not the spirit of the day, but it is part of it because, actually, in the history it was all about making money. It was all about taking for financial profit, for the aspirations of a culture that came to colonise. It was about the money, all right.

So I think it behoves us now to acknowledge that it is always going to be about spiritual and cultural acknowledgment, but also it is about negotiating what is fair. Redress—as Minister Finlayson often, quite rightly, says—is never fair and is never complete, and neither is this. It is a good gesture, but I am always uncomfortable to say that it is not about resources, because truth and reconciliation are about truth and reconciliation based on the return of resources. That is where true justice and peace in this country will come from—when we have actually returned resources. Each settlement does its bit and this one is a triumph for you, but there is still more conversation to be had and more commitment.

The Green Party recently said that we would review Te Tiriti in terms of the settlement process, in terms of looking at issues of “full and final” and looking at acknowledging the issues that come with large natural groupings. So this is not a political speech—this is your day—but because we acknowledge the complexity of what you have had to deal with, and what all the hapū katoa have had to deal with, we acknowledge those things. We acknowledge them as being important and not being easily settled. We need to learn in this country how to honour those things, rather than divide the people and force them into dividing each other.

So we would just like to acknowledge the importance of many aspects of this settlement. The apology is very important, because there is no healing without a genuine apology. An apology, when it is accepted, forms a base for a new relationship. If someone apologises without their whole heart and it is not accepted by others, then it is meaningless. If someone apologies wholeheartedly and the people are able to accept it, then that is a new platform for a new beginning. But, like I said, we need the apology, acknowledgment, cultural redress, and resources, because we are beings who need to live in a world where we can live. My beloved colleague Metiria Turei—from Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, in your rohe as well—knows better than anyone that it is all about looking after our people and standing up for our people. It is all about those issues.

So I wish the Wairarapa people, all of you, the very best for this. We need to clean up the water, we need to restore the forests, and we need to restore the people’s right to live not in poverty and struggle but in dignity and rangatiratanga. Article 2 is always before us.

The issue around Pūkaha is great because that is such an amazing resource for this country. I just want to acknowledge your generosity because, like in many settlements, these icons and taonga of our country are returned to you, and then you give them straight back. You know, I do not know whether I would do that. I think it is extreme generosity. I would love to actually see us be given something that we have to give straight back in my culture. Bring it on—let us learn how to give it back. I think that would be a good thing for us spiritually and culturally, as well as in every other way, because, again and again, the people, the tangata whenua are always being asked to do this and they do it out of generosity, as it has always been throughout the entire history of your relationship. The Rangitāne relationship with the Crown has been generosity on one side. So let us all practise real generosity and acknowledge that this is your whenua, your awa, your ngahere, your moana, and that we are lucky to live within your generosity, graciousness, and your knowledge—intimate knowledge—of these resources.

I would just like to acknowledge Lake Wairarapa. At the bottom of the catchment, this beautiful body—this living being—everything flows down from the top to the bottom and ends up there. In that place all of the history of the last hundred or so years—150 years—is manifest, and all the work that needs to be done is symbolised by that. There is no magic place called away. There is no escape either from our colonial history or from our abuse of the land. It is all manifest. The water is talking to us all the time about what we are doing to the land. The people are talking to us about what we have done to them.

It is a great day, but, for the Green Party, it is a day when we say there is still time to listen, more to be said, and more to negotiate. Congratulations. We honour you as we try to honour Te Tiriti. Tēnā koutou katoa.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): This is a bit of a privilege. Normally, Pita Paraone speaks on Treaty settlement bills on behalf of New Zealand First, but this one is a bit of an exception for me, because the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tamaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill is a bill that I got involved in from the side as a lead negotiator for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-ā-Rua. I will not take that long with my kōrero, I think, but I do need to say firstly, to my whanaunga from Rangitāne, to all the people up there in the gallery—Mavis and Tīpene, and I know Jason is there, and please forgive me if I do not mention you all. These are the people with whom, sadly, we were on occasion locked in negotiation in accordance with the Crown’s stipulated processes to settle cross-claims and shared-interest claims. I have to say that it is one of those processes that generated conflict between ourselves, which was hard to bear on occasion.

People from the Wairarapa who are Ngāti Kahungunu are, almost without exception, I think, also Rangitāne. People within the Wairarapa who are Rangitāne are also, without exception, I think, Kahungunu. But the reality is that that was not always the case. Without going back through the history, which is clearly stipulated and laid out here in the settlement, over time we became blended, but for one reason or another, some of us take our Kahungunu ancestry forward first, and others take the Rangitāne ancestry forward first.

The Treaty settlement claim process of the Treaty grievances that arose drove a wedge between families, individuals, hapū, and marae, and between our iwi. This is a very difficult process to go through, but the Crown’s processes are stipulated, and if you want to get a settlement, you must follow that process. Some parts of that process are difficult. Shared interests generate controversy, argument, and debate as to who is right and who is wrong in their recounting of historical events and of whakapapa. Just the question over marae—the question over who has ascendancy and who has the greatest claim or mandate or mana on particular marae—was always going to generate some very difficult conversations, and, regretfully, there are times when people in that negotiating process say things that they subsequently regret. But that is the nature of Treaty settlements and the process that we are all put into.

The questions around Pūkaha, Hāmua, and Wairarapa Moana caused us days, weeks, and months of debate as we moved from marae to marae through the Treaty settlement process. I guess one would look at this settlement, which we support and endorse—I hope that we will look, in time, at the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-ā-Rua settlement when we do that third reading, as well, and I would hope that we will by then have put all the pain, all the hurt, and all that raruraru off to one side and will be looking at the future and at opportunities that will then be open to us as a people: Kahungunu o Rangitāne.

I was always impressed by the demeanour of Mavis Mullins and Jason Kerehi, and I recognise and acknowledge the pain and the difficulty that was carried forward by Mānahi and Tīpene through those very difficult and trying negotiations. The fact of the matter is that we arrived at a point. The fact of the matter is that Rangitāne arrived at a point, and actually arrived there ahead of Ngāti Kahungunu, and I congratulate you on that. I congratulate you on your tenacity, on your courage, and on the way in which you remain true to those who lodged these claims and started the whole process going forward and who are no longer here today to see this debate and to see this moment in Rangitāne history and time come to fruition.

There is this third reading and then we await the Governor-General’s signature, and that will be this done. But it will not be done in terms of Rangitāne and how it goes forward. It will not be done in terms of Ngāti Kahungunu in the Wairarapa and how we go forward. It will be the start.

I am pondering—and I know I have had this conversation with some of you recently—and I wonder how we will look at the collective strength of Rangitāne and Kahungunu working together in the Wairarapa. I wonder what that might do for all of our mokopuna.

When we, once again, put all of this behind us and look collectively and strategically at the economic strength, I think that after these two settlements, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne will probably be, economically, the strongest force in the Wairarapa, next to Trust House. Mind you, Trust House got a nice sweetheart deal, and that was done in a much shorter time than this process. Trust House was given, what, 230-odd houses in a sweetheart deal, at $20,000 a house, by the National Government of the day. Wyatt Creech was the MP for the Wairarapa and the Deputy Prime Minister, and one of the things I will never forget was that in the negotiation process, when Rangitāne was looking at assets that might come back, the one thing that was not on the table for them was the opportunity to take houses, because they had gone—all of them.

I acknowledge the difficulty of Rangitāne in trying to work a way through not just the cultural settlement, which is a minefield—particularly in the shared interest part of the negotiation—but on the commercial side, when you were looking at what the Crown had that could actually be part of this settlement, and it was not a lot, was it? So I look forward to seeing a time when Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu collectively, together, work strategically for the betterment of all of our people in the Wairarapa and for all of our people who no longer reside in the Wairarapa but who are dotted all over the country and all over the world.

I just want to conclude by saying that the work that was started by those who are no longer here and by some who are here, the work that was taken up by the negotiators—those who have subsequently joined the post-settlement governance entity, Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, and those who are going to be employed working on managing those assets, are all to be congratulated. But might I also suggest that they are going to be in need of your support, your love, and your reinforcement, because now the responsibility that has been placed before them is great. They will need your strength if they are to advance the people of Rangitāne, so that they might achieve those things that our forebears and ancestors aspired to and wished to be achieved on their behalf. Congratulations, whanaunga, this is a great day for you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a tātau, ā, koutou o Rangitāne, koutou i tae tawhiti mai, koutou kua tae ā-tinana, ā-kanohi mai, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, te hunga rangatahi o Te Kura o Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua. Kai te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai ki te āta tiro atu ki tēnei rangi, he rangi whakahirahira tēnei rangi, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you collectively, us and you of Rangitāne extraction who have come from afar, physically and face to face. I acknowledge you, all the young ones from the Kura of Dannevirke. I commend you, the younger generation who have arrived to look at this day critically. This day is a significant one, and I congratulate you.]

I am not going to take too much time and do a great big long mihi. We all know what we are here for. We are here, finally, after first submitting the claims in the 1980s. And I want to acknowledge some people, and I have a great big list and I am really scared about doing this, because then I am going to miss some people out. But here we go. We will see how well I do and you can tell me off after.

First of all I want to acknowledge Uncle Kuki and Auntie Helen. I will talk more about that soon, when I cast our minds back to 2004 when the tribunal came to Te Ore Ore marae. But I also want to acknowledge Auntie Margaret and Auntie Barbara Kōpua—Auntie Barbie. I want to acknowledge all of my aunties who have passed away while we have waited for this day to come, who were all there in 2004, listening to our Rangitāne whānau stand up and lay their claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal.

But I also want to acknowledge Uncle Jim, Mike, and your whānau, and Erena. I want to acknowledge Auntie Mere Kerehi, tēnā koe. Auntie Kate, Nanny Hinerau—lovely to see you. [Interruption] I know. I have got to get your name in Hansard and I will try not to use the “you”, because they tell us off for that. But Nanny Hinerau Te Tau is here. Mānahi Paewai, Maisy, Jason, and Mavis—I am going to get told off; I know I have forgotten someone. Richard Tīpene, Piri, kia ora rā. John Sproat, Tina Te Tau, Hēnare Te Kani—where are you, Hēnare? Oh, ka pai. I want to acknowledge Mavis, of course; Jason; Yvette; Warwick Gernhoefer; Edward Pearse; Mahalia Paewai; and Taylor Mihaere.

Now, I have read out a great big list of people and you can tell me off later. But I just wanted to acknowledge how much it takes to come to this point. In 2004, if we remember that day, we had just taken Uncle Kuki on to the marae at Te Ore Ore and then had to turn around and clear the marae for the tribunal to come in. It was a significant day that will for ever be etched in my memory. That year, 2004, was a historic year for us, not because I came home to Wairarapa to take up the role of principal at the kura, but because of the significant acknowledgment of our people, finally. The biggest ever exhibition happened at the Aratoi arts and history museum, where all of our marae got to come in week after week and lay their taonga in front of the people. It had never had an exhibition like it—24,000 people came through that exhibition. That is the whole entire population of Masterton. We took all of our kids there.

I remember the day that year when my brother, Rāwiri, stood in front of our wharekura class—the first wharekura established—and there were four of us, four students. Mike Kāwana—little Mikey—and Frankie and, I think, Ririwai, and who else, Jareth? That was it. We had four of them, and by the end of the year we had seven. Rāwiri stood up and in the very first lesson he connected them to how they were connected by whakapapa to both Rangitāne and Kahungunu, and to each other. I will always remember Uncle Kuki taking me to the marae and into the whare at Te Ore Ore, showing me the photos on the wall and saying: “That’s your tūpuna. That’s why you have a waewae here and a waewae there.” I feel like Tara, over the maunga—but I heard that story in a different way, in that he missed his wife so much that he looked at those twin peaks and was a bit mokemoke—ha! Just saying. Free and frank—ha, ha!

That year was significant for us, because we were getting over 10 years of heartbreak, when we were known in Wairarapa for killing our children. That is what we were known for, and when we took our wharekura kids to Te Wānanga o Raukawa to study and they stood up and introduced themselves as being from Wairarapa, the entire audience went “Aw!”. And they would connect themselves to every other piece of whakapapa that they could find—“I’m not from Wairarapa or from Kahungunu or Rangitāne; I’m from Tūhoe.”, or “I’m from Ngati Porou.”, or “I’m from Ngāpuhi.”

Peeni Henare: Everyone’s from Ngāpuhi.

MARAMA FOX: Ha, ha! All right—that is because you fullas infiltrated everywhere. Ha! But they were ashamed of being from our own town, from our own rohe—our babies. And it was heartbreaking. I remember that Rāwiri came up with a plan. He had found a kōrero in the Māori Land Court records from Tūtawake that said: he whakatō tāne nō Tūtewake, he toa. [a man conceived of Tūtewake, a warrior.] The making of a man is in Tūtawake, the warrior, and not because he was a warrior and not because he was the chief, but because he was known for looking after his whānau.

And he thought about that, as my brother does—you know him—and he came up with a plan. He said: “You know, our kids talk about being ‘the man’ or ‘the woman’.”, and so he started making posters of all our ancestors. His dream was to put them on every lamp post from the block all the way to town so our kids would walk past them every day. He put them up around the classroom walls. “Nireaha was the man, because …” and “Niniwa-i-te-rangi was the woman, because …”. And he started bringing these names of our ancestors back and reminding the kids that they were born of greatness; that they had nothing to be ashamed of; that they could stand in the shadow of their ancestors and be proud. And so I want to remind us of one of those ancestors: Nireaha—Nireaha, who owned a hotel where the coach line had to come through.

Right now, the hall still stands there, but does anybody notice it as they zoom past? You know? I think of that forest Tapere-nui-a-Whātonga, which was chopped down by our Viking cousins. Now we have married them all, so they are all interrelated as well—from Norsewood. They chopped our forest down. It was said to be so heavily shaded by the canopy that you needed a light to travel through it. Nireaha fought for his land and fought to say “No, I’m not going to stop paying my leases. I’m not going to stop charging leases to the settlers.”—because yes, we embraced settlers. They could come.

We were some of the richest landowners in this country, who had our own businesses, who exported to all over the world, who had trade. And we went from that to this because somebody came along and said: “You can’t pay your land leases to the Māori anymore.” Nireaha, at 65, took them to the Privy Council and won—and won. And when he got back, despite winning, they dismissed it and still took his land. We all need to know, because I grew up with one of the most prized educations in this land, in Christchurch. People move into those suburbs to try to get that education, and I knew nothing until I came home to Wairarapa and learnt about our people and our greatness—the greatness that you fight for.

Today, in my last 53 seconds, I just want to acknowledge that we are here and we are born of greatness and we rise and we thrive. This might be a little bit of pūtea—and the greatest gift back to this nation is that we accept such a pittance for the travesty that has happened—but we are still here and we are resilient and we rise. We do it on the backs of your efforts, on the backs of these tamariki on whose behalf we continue to fight; we do it on the backs of our tūpuna, who left this legacy of power for us; and we do it on the backs of aroha, because what we do we do because we love who we love. We carry on and we rise. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well, that is a hard act to follow—I would like to acknowledge Marama Fox’s contribution. Also, I would like to acknowledge Ron Mark’s contribution and Jo Hayes’ contribution, particularly for being very linked and tied to the Rangitāne people, who are in the gallery this morning. Welcome, everybody. Welcome to the House of Parliament—your House. It is an honour to be here speaking in this House in front of you today. It is not often that a sitting MP gets to participate in the third reading of a settlement bill in his or her own electorate. John Hayes before me and Georgina Beyer before him did not get the opportunity to speak on a third reading of a settlement bill. I am looking forward, Mr Mark, to speaking on the third reading of the Kahungunu bill in the near future—

Pita Paraone: So is he.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: —so we will see you next term.

Marama Fox: He will have to win your seat.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Ha, ha! That is right. I am not going to go through the history; Minister Finlayson has described that very well, and Marama has given some very local history and understanding of the story of Rangitāne. But I would like to discuss or to mention the cross-claims, and acknowledge the Rangitāne and Kahungunu arguments. Ron Mark described the arguments as being tough work—hard work. You know, sometimes these disputes can be fractious, aggressive, or unpleasant, even, but I would like to acknowledge your settlement and your understanding, because to get here you must have listened—listened and understood—and that is the benefit of a dispute. That is the silver lining, if you like, of understanding the other party to the dispute, whether it is Kahungunu or the Crown, in this case. So I acknowledge your generosity of spirit in wanting to negotiate and to agree and to listen and to understand. That is very important.

I would also like to acknowledge, of course, those who are here, but also those who are not here. I acknowledge those who are listening out there across the country, and I also acknowledge those who have passed, because, of course, they have set the foundation for what is the third reading of the settlement today.

But most of my contribution is about the future, because that is what is important. That is what we are here for, that is why we do the work in this House: for the people of New Zealand and for their future. It is so gratifying and so pleasing to see rangatahi here today listening to the third reading. To those people—those young people up there—you will have heard stories from your parents and your uncles and your aunties and your grandparents. If you are like my kids, you do not necessarily listen to your parents. You do not necessarily listen to your family elders, or the members of your family, even, so I am going to take the opportunity to speak directly on their behalf to you. I want to emphasise the importance of the role that young people—you—play going forward, because it is now your responsibility, collectively and individually, to take the mantle and to go forward.

It is your responsibility to decide who will be your leaders and who will be your followers, because you cannot have leaders without followers, and there is no such thing as followers without leaders. It is a collaborative process. I encourage you to work together, and there has been discussion around working with Kahungunu, working together amongst yourselves to build on the foundation that has been set by those who have come before you. It is a fantastic opportunity that you have in front of you, and I encourage you to take that opportunity to participate, and to look to the people before you as fantastic role models—Jason and Mavis particularly; the best people, the best of the best people—for you to model yourselves on. But it is up to you. It is up to the young people. I cannot do it for you; none of the people in this House can do it for you. It is for you to decide how to act and react to the situation and the opportunities that are laid out before you, going from today forward. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): E te Māngai o te Whare, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Tuatahi māku ki tō tātau kaiwhakarite i te ata nei, ki a Tutehounuku Korako i whakaritea ai i tō tātau huihuinga kia pai ai te nohoanga o tēnei Whare mai i tōna tīmatanga tae noa atu ki te poupoutanga o te rā. Kāti ngā mihi nui ki a ia. Tuarua ki ngā mate huhua o te wā, ngā mate i pīkauria mai e koutou e Rangitāne, ki runga i te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare. Kia tāpae atu ko ngā aituā maha kei runga i a mātau, kia kotahi ai te tangi atu ki a rātau, haere mai haere e ngā mate.

Kāti, e huri tū atu ahau ki a koe e te Minita. Ā, aini ki roto i ngā waiata Māori, ki roto i ngā tau e tū nei, ka kōrerohia mātau i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a koe me ngā mahi nui i oti i a koe ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei e pā ana ki ngā take tiriti o te wā. Nō reira e mihi atu ana au ki a koe me te heamana o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i Ngā Take Māori a Tutehounuku Korako. Ka rere tonu ngā mihi ki a ia otirā ki ngā mema o taua rōpū i whakarongo ki ngā kōrero a tēnā, a tēnā, a tēnā o Rangitāne kua tau mai i te rā nei. Kāti ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

Ka kōrero a Marama Fox mō tēnei mea ko ngā whakapapa a tēnā, a tēnā. E tika ana taku kōrero ki tō tātau Whare e mea atu ana, anā ko Rangitāne, anā ko mātau o Te Tai Tokerau, he iwi kotahi. Me kaua e tukuna mā te ture tātau e wehewehe ai, nā runga i te mōhio i tau mai te waka o Kurahaupō ki roto i a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau. Me kī pēnei te kōrero, ko Kurahaupō te waka, ko Te Pōhurihanga ki runga, ka puta mai ko Muriwhenua, ka puta mai ko Tamatea, ka puta mai ko Te Kauri, ka puta mai ko Mārama-Ariari, ka puta mai ko Reikōkopu, ka puta mai ko Hinekehu, anā, ka puta mai ko Tūwhakatere. Ko mātau o Te Tai Tokerau, he tupuna rongonui a Tūwhakatere ki waenganui i a mātau. Kāti e ngā whanaunga o Rangitāne, ngā uri o Kurahaupō waka, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai.

He mīharo ki a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau, tā te mea he pōhara mātau. Ka kite atu mātau i ngā hia miriona tāra i tukuna atu ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi. Ko te mea pai o te whakapapa, ka whai karahipi waku tamariki ki roto i a koutou. Kore e taea e te ture te karo i tēnei mea te whakapapa. Mehemea ka kī atu ko Rangitāne nō Kurahaupō waka, ka kī atu ahau ko waku tamariki nō Kurahaupō waka, tēnā, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. E aku rangatira, ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ngā kōrero kei roto i te Paipera Tapu, ko ngā karaipiture. E mea ana, Ecclesiastes, nē? Ko te ūpoko tuatoru, anā ko ngā rārangi tuatahi ki te rārangi tuawaru. He wā anō mō ngā mea katoa. Ka huri tū atu ki te rārangi tuawhitu e kī pēnei ana. He wā mō te tīhaehae, he wā mō te hanganga. He wā mō te wahangū, he wā mō te kōrero. He wā mō te aroha, he wā mō te tūkino. He wā mō te pakanga, he wā mō te rangimārie. Āta whakaarohia i tērā karaipiture. Nē? Āta whakaarohia. He wā mō te pakanga, i pakanga koutou i te pakanga. Iāianei nā, he wā mō te aroha. He wā anō mō te aroha. Ko ēnei kōrero katoa e hāngai pū ana ki ngā take tiriti katoa ka uru mai ki roto i tēnei Whare. Nō reira āe, he wā mō te matenga, he wā anō mō te ora. Nō reira, rātau ki a rātau, nā ka tahuri mai ki a tātau e te Whare.

Ka kapohia ake ahau i te kōrero a Alastair Scott i tērā taha o te Whare. Me anga atu te titiro ki ngā tau kei mua i a tātau. Ahakoa ki hea, i kōrero mai ngā mātua tūpuna mō te ao o wā rātau mokopuna. Kua tutuki koutou i tētahi mahi nunui rawa atu, kia tatū ai te kerēme o Rangitāne ki roto i ngā ture a te Karauna, a tēnei Whare hoki. Iāianei nā, ko ngā whakaaro kei ngā tamariki, kei ngā mokopuna e tupu haere nei, e tupu haere nei, e tupu haere nei. Ko te hiahia, ki roto i ngā mahi kapahaka e tū nei, ngā whakataetae ā-rohe, ngā whakataetae a Te Matatini, ka rangona whānuitia te motu whānui i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a Rangitāne, me ngā nekehanga o tēnei kaupapa, anā ko ngā take tiriti e pā ana ki a koutou.

Anā, me te hiahia kia rangona whānuitia e mātau, he aha nei nā ō koutou wawata mō ngā uri whakatupu e haere mai ana. Koinā te wero nui kei mua i a koutou, otirā kei mua i a tātau. Koinā tāku e pānui ana i ngā karaipiture, he wā anō mō tēnei mea, he wā anō mō tēnei mea. Kua tutuki i a koutou te mahi nui. Kua tutuki. Iāianei nā, ko te aronga kei ngā tau kei mua i a tātau. Nō reira koinā te take e harikoa ana, kia kite atu i wā tātau tamariki mokopuna ki roto i tēnei Whare. Tā te mea, ki roto i ngā tau e tū mai nei, kei runga i ngā pokowhiwhi a ngā tamariki, a ngā mokopuna, ngā moemoeā o Rangitāne, otirā tātau te iwi Māori. Nō reira e mihi atu ana au ki a koutou. Tā te mea ko au te kaikōrero whakamutunga mō tēnei pire i te ata nei, ka kapi ahau i ngā kōrero.

Kua wahaina mai e te Minita i ngā kiko o te pire nei. Ka kōrero mai tēnā, tēnā, tēnā o mātau o te Whare i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, i ngā kōrero ko wā rātau pānga ki roto i a koutou me te pire kei mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei. Ka riro māku nei ngā kōrero hei whakakapi ake. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou otirā ki a tātau. Kia mōhio mai koutou, whai muri i tēnei pire ko te pire e pā ana ki a Ngāti Pūkenga, ka aro atu te titiro ki roto o Tauranga Moana. Ko ngā āhuatanga kei runga i a koutou mō ngā he aha nei nā te kōrero? Ka mea mai ētahi o te ao Pākehā, anā ko ngā conflicting interests, ko cross interests aha atu raini. E mea ana mātau te iwi Māori, anā ko te whakapapa tēnā.

Ā, ko tērā take he take nui kei mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare otirā te iwi Māori ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātau. Ka whai whakaaro mātau ngā mema kei roto i te Whare nei mō ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki a Ngāpuhi. Kāre e kore, ka tū mai tētahi hapū, ka tū mai tētahi hapū, ka tū mai tētahi whānau, ka tū mai tētahi whānau, ki te kōrero ki wā rātau ake mana motuhake. Nō reira ko te pai o tēnei ata, kua kite atu koutou, kua noho ngātahi, kua kōrero ngātahi, kua whakaritea nei e koutou i te mahere kia tutuki ai tēnei mahi nui. Anā ko te aronga iāianei kei ngā tau kei mua i a tātau. Kāti ake i konei. Ko te hiahia, kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga o te Kaihanga ki runga i a Rangitāne, e hoki haere atu ana ki wā rātau pā kāinga puta noa. Mā te Atua koutou, otirā mātau, tātau katoa e tiaki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e te Māngai o te Whare tēnā tātau katoa.

[I will remain speaking in the Māori language. First of all, I acknowledge our prayer-giver this morning, Tutehounuku Korako. He delivered it on behalf of our gathering so that the sitting of this House goes well from its commencement until noon. Many, many, thanks to him. Secondly, to the myriads of deaths of the moment, those you brought with you, Rangitāne, and placed upon the ridge pole of this House, and stacked upon the myriads of our deaths so that we can grieve them as one; come forth the dead and farewell.

I turn now to you, Minister. Already within Māori songs and in years to come, we will talk about you and the great work you accomplished in the past years about matters of the moment relating to the Treaty. Therefore I acknowledge you and the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tutehounuku Korako. Tributes to him continue to flow, but at the same time to members of that committee who listened to contributions by each individual from Rangitāne who has arrived here today. Many thanks to you all.

Marama Fox has spoken about this thing, the genealogy of that individual and that individual. What I said in my address to our House is absolutely correct, that Rangitāne and us of Northland, we are one tribe. Don’t let legislation divide us upon the understanding that the Kurahaupō canoe landed amongst us of North Auckland. This is how the aphorism goes: on the Kurahaupō canoe was Te Pōhurihanga who begat Muriwhenua, who begat Tamatea, who begat Te Kauri, who begat Mārama-Ariari, who begat Reikōkopu, who begat Hinekehu, who subsequently begat Tūwhakatere. To us of Northland, Tūwhakatere is a famous ancestor amongst us well then Rangitāne, the descendants of the Kurahaupō canoe, welcome, come forth, come hither.

This is amazing to us of Northland, because we are impoverished. We see the millions of dollars released to that tribe and that one. The great thing about genealogy is that my children will get a scholarship through you! Legislation is not able to dodge this thing called genealogy. If Rangitāne is able to say it is from the Kurahaupō canoe, I can say my children are from the canoe of Kurahaupō; right, then, welcome, come hither, come forth.

My esteemed ones, I think about the accounts in the Holy Bible, the scriptures referring to Ecclesiastes. OK, it is the third chapter, from the first to the eighth section—there is a time for everything. Turning to the seventh section, it says that there is a time for ripping it up and a time to create, a time for silence and a time to talk, a time for love and a time to be bad, a time for war and a time for peace. Really reflect on that scripture, OK; consider it. There is time for war—you fought it. Right now there is time for empathy, and time, as well, for sympathy. All these comments focus on Treaty settlements that come unto this House. And so, yes, there is time for death and there is time for life. And so they the dead to themselves; let us the House turn back to ourselves.

I take up Alastair Scott’s contribution on that side of the House in that the gaze should be directed upon the years ahead of us. Regardless of where, the ancestral forefathers talked about the world of their grandchildren. You have completed one of the most crucial tasks of all and that is to settle the Rangitāne claim within the acts of the Crown and of this House as well. Right now thoughts are with children and grandchildren that continue to emerge, grow, and develop. The desire is that within future performing arts, both regional competitions and the national Te Matatini competition, the whole country will hear stories about Rangitāne and the movements of this settlement, namely about Treaty matters that impact on you collectively.

Furthermore, the hope is that we hear widely what, indeed, are your aspirations for future generations. That indeed is the big challenge for you collectively, but at the same time before us. That’s what I read in the scriptures. There is a time for this so-and-so and a time for this thing. The important task has been done; you have fulfilled it. The focus right now is on the years ahead of us. So that indeed is the reason why it is pleasing to see our children and grandchildren here in this House, because in years to come the aspirations of Rangitāne, but at the same time of ours, will be on their shoulders. Therefore, I commend you collectively because I am the last speaker for this bill this morning and will cover off the contributions.

The Minister brought the contents of the bill here, and each of us of the House commented on their connection within you and the bill before this House. It is left for me to cover off the contributions and so I commend you collectively, but, at the same time, us. You should note that following this bill the focus will be on the bill relating to Ngāti Pūkenga, and in particular, the circumstances upon you about the—what’s the comment? Some people in mainstream refer to these things called, conflicting interests, cross interests or whatever. Now then, we of Māoridom assert genealogy is that. And it is an important matter before this House and Māoridom in the future for us.

We the members in this House are mindful of the circumstances relating to Ngāpuhi. Without a doubt, each and every subtribe will stand up and talk about its own self-determination. So the good thing about this morning is that you have seen, got together, talked together, and arranged the plan together that will fulfil this important task. The direction now for us is to the years ahead. This ends here. The hope is that the Creator’s generosities settle upon Rangitāne returning to their homes and settlements throughout. God will protect you, but at the same time us, all of us. Acknowledgments and accolades to you collectively, and to us all.]

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I extend a warm welcome to members of Ngāti Pūkenga who have travelled from Tauranga, from Maketū, Manaia, Pakikaikutu, and from further afar to be here on this very important day. The iwi has had to overcome many obstacles to get to this point, but it has been worth the wait.

As I always do during a settlement bill speech, I want to acknowledge the driving forces behind each settlement, starting with those who led the way many years ago and who are no longer with us. I particularly want to mention the late Wīremu Ōhia. As I have said before in this House, he was a great leader, both in Tauranga Moana and on the national stage, and his vision of people working together paved the way to where we are today. I also want to pay tribute, again, to Te Awanuiārangi Black, who left us late last year. During his short life he made fine contributions in many fields. Among other qualities, he was a staunch advocate for Te Reo Māori, and was determined to make a difference for his people through his involvement at the regional level and also on numerous boards. He was committed to development for Māori in general, and his iwi in particular, and that is why he became a negotiator for Ngāti Pūkenga. Today, this bill is the realisation of his aspirations and the aspirations of his tupuna before him.

To those who worked so hard to make today possible, I offer my most sincere thanks. The settlement represents years of hard work by the negotiating team, and I acknowledge Shane Ashby, Harry Mikaere, Āreta Gray, Dominic Wilson, and Rāhera Ōhia. For the past 7 years they showed an unwavering willingness to engage constructively with the Crown, even during difficult periods of the negotiation. The Crown and Ngāti Pūkenga signed a deed of settlement at Te Whetū o Te Rangi Marae on a very fine Sunday afternoon in April 2013, over 4 years ago. Since then, while their iwi-specific settlement was on the backburner, they continued to engage with the Crown and with their neighbours on the collective settlements in Tauranga and in Hauraki. Today I salute them for their fortitude and determination, and for remaining steadfast in their commitment to settle in the face of some difficulties.

I am not going to go over the settlement package in too much detail, as some of my colleagues may want to talk further about this in their speeches. What I want to do is take some time to articulate and record the history of Ngāti Pūkenga and their interactions with the Crown over the past 170 years. That history is the reason we are here today. In April 1840 a leader of Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Kou o Rēhua, signed the Treaty at Maungatapu. He expected that the Crown would protect his people’s rights, property, and privileges. He spoke on many occasions of the partnership that he believed would flow from the Treaty.

A few years later, as the New Zealand Wars unfolded, Ngāti Pūkenga did not support the fight against the Crown after the invasion of the Waikato in 1863, despite many iwi supporting the Kīngitanga. They did not fight a year later when the war came to Tauranga Moana after Crown troops attacked Pūkehinahina. Ngāti Pūkenga, as an iwi, chose instead to uphold the Treaty, and did not take part in any of the conflicts. Despite assuring the iwi it would scrupulously respect their interests, the Crown, through the enactment of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, confiscated a very large part of the district, thus unjustly extinguishing all of Ngāti Pūkenga’s customary interests in Tauranga.

It is important to acknowledge that this settlement relates to people whose lives were irretrievably affected by Crown actions. Ngāti Pūkenga lost much of their kāinga mātua through the confiscation of their lands at Tauranga Moana, and were dispersed between their four small and scattered kāinga as a result. Despite upholding the law and the Treaty, Ngāti Pūkenga were severely impacted by the loss of their land and the loss of their mana. They did not receive the same opportunity as others to protect and nurture their interests in Tauranga Moana. They became dependent on lands gifted to them by other iwi. Even then the Crown failed to respect the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Pūkenga in their remaining lands. The Crown continued to fail them during the 19th century and did not protect their tribal interests from the impact of the individualisation of Māori land titles. It is a testament to their tenacity that they have maintained a presence in such disconnected areas as Manaia and, further afar, Pakikaikutu.

Last month we commemorated the 154th anniversary of colonial forces invading Mangatawhiri. This battle marked the beginning of the Waikato War, which was a defining conflict in New Zealand history. Ensuing battles in various parts of our land shaped our country and its people. We cannot build a relationship or move forward together unless we acknowledge what happened in the past, whether it happened at Parihaka or Mangatawhiri. As we prepare ourselves for the first national commemoration day on 28 October, today is a good opportunity for the Crown to acknowledge the errors of the past and to make amends for its actions or omissions.

Members who are present in the House know I say this for every settlement, but the loss Ngāti Pūkenga suffered can never be fully compensated for by the Crown, and much of what was lost simply cannot be returned. However, the people of Ngāti Pūkenga have accepted the redress contained in the settlement and, in doing so, have decided to look to the future. The financial and commercial redress provided to Ngāti Pūkenga seeks to recognise the losses suffered by them. They are going to receive $7 million, plus interest, as well as commercial redress properties and rights of first refusal over specific land.

The cultural redress aims to recognise their traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations with places and sites in their area of interest. This includes the vesting of cultural redress properties, protocols, and statutory acknowledgments, and funding to support projects involving cultural revitalisation. I am pleased to hear that Ngāti Pūkenga has already got on with it and inaugurated their new wharenui in Manaia earlier this year.

I believe the package will help reconnect Ngāti Pūkenga with its environment and acknowledge the mana and the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Pūkenga in its four kāinga. During the second reading speeches, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta pointed out that it is not the size of the settlement that matters but how purposeful it is and how suited it is to support the vision of the iwi, and, with respect, I wholeheartedly agree with her.

Throughout the negotiations, Ngāti Pūkenga have worked very hard and shown a willingness to move forward, even when navigating some tricky waters. They have laid a new foundation for their relationship with the Crown and are now positioning themselves as a key player in Tauranga, which, as we all know, is growing at such a fast pace. Ngāti Pūkenga are ready for their next journey and, thus, without any further delay, I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): Tuatahi māku hei whakapuaretia āku nei kōrero i te ata nei, e mihi kau ana ki tō tātau kaikarakia nāna nei i tīmata te wahanga nei i runga i te huarahi tika. Nā reira, tēnā rā koe e te tuakana, e Nuk. Ā, Ngāti Pūkenga, tēnā rā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki roto o tēnei Whare, haere mai ki raro i te tuanui o tō tātau Whare. I tēnei wā e whakatau ana i ō koutou kerēme. Kua rongohia ki roto i Te Whare ngā ingoa o wētahi kua wehe atu ki Te Pō. Nā reira, ko Awanuiārangi tētahi, ko Monte Ōhia tētahi, me te tini te mano hoki nā reira, kei te tangi, kei te tangi, kei te tangi tonu tātau katoa i a rātau. Engari rātau ki a rātau, ko tātau ki a tātau anō ngā kanohi ora, tēnā koutou.

Ā, Ngāti Pūkenga, tēnei ahau he tamaiti nō Te Tai Tokerau e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. E rua ngā take e hiahia ana te whakakōrerohia i te ata nei. Ko tērā o ngā kāinga kei roto i a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau a Pakikaikutu. I te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire, nāku i whakamāramatia ngā āhuatanga o taua kāinga. He aha te take he kāinga o Ngāti Pūkenga kei roto i a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau? I whakamāramatia e au i te kōrero e pā ana ki tērā o koutou i haere, i peka atu ki te tūtaki i tana tuahine, ko Te Rore, te wahine o Wharepoaka. I tana taenga ki uta, kua haere ia te tūtaki i tana tuahine engari, tētahi nanakia nō roto o Ngāti Wai, horekau nō Ngāpuhi, ā, i patungia, i kōhurungia taua tangata. I runga i tēnā, nā taua tupuna, a Te Tirarau, i runga i te mōhioranga kua hē taua mate, nāna i hoatu taua wahanga, taua kāinga a Pakikaikutu ki a Ngāti Pūkenga, kia taea ai e Ngāti Pūkenga te noho ki waenganui i a mātau o Te Tai Tokerau.

Ko taua kōrero, he kōrero hei honohono i a koutou ki a mātau, engari, tērā atu tetahi kōrero e pā ana ki tērā pakanga i roto i a mātau o Ruapekapeka. I te wā i roto a Kāwiti, i roto a Hone Heke i te mura o te ahi, kua huri a Hone Heke me te pātai: kei hea a Kaharau? Arā, kei hea ōna whanaunga nō te taitamatāne? He aha te take a Hokianga, kīhai i haere mai ki te āwhina i a mātau o roto o Taumārere? Kua puta te tono mō ētahi kia haere mai hei āwhina, hei whawhai pokowhiwhi ki te pokowhiwhi ki a Ngāti Hine. Wēnei i tae ake ko Ngāti Manu, Te Kapotai, Patukeha, wētahi nō Mangakāhia. Kua tae ake hoki a Ngāti Pūkenga.

Nā reira, tēnei ahau he uri o aua rangatira o Ngāpuhi, e mihi kau ana ki ō koutou tūpuna i haere mai i taua wā ki te whawhai tahi, pokowhiwhi ki te pokowhiwhi, nā reira, i runga i tēnā, tēnei ahau e tuku atu i tēnei tono ki a koutou kia haere mai ki roto i a Ruapekapeka ā 28 Oketopa, kia whakamaumaharatia e tātau, ō tātāu tūpuna nā rātau i whakaheke ō rātau toto i runga o te maunga o Haruru Tapuwae. Nā reira Ngāti Pūkenga, tēnei mātau e whakawhetai ana ki a koutou, ki ō koutou tūpuna mō aua āwhina nā rātau ki a mātau, nā i runga i tēnā ka huri ake ahau ki te pire.

[The first thing for me in terms of opening my comments this morning is to immediately acknowledge our prayer-giver, who began this part on the right track. Therefore, thank you very much, elder colleague, Nuk. And now to you, Ngāti Pūkenga, acknowledgments to you collectively, welcome, come hither into this House, come here under the roof of our House. At this moment, I formally welcome your claims. Some names of individuals who have departed to the void have been heard in the House. Therefore Awanuiārangi was one, Monte Ōhia another, and countless, thousands more also, and so all of us continue to mourn, grieve, and lament them. But allow them, the dead, to remain there among themselves while we the living remain here amongst ourselves, acknowledgments to you.

And so to you, Ngāti Pūkenga, here I am, this child from North Auckland, paying you collectively a tribute indeed. There are two matters that I want to address this morning. One is about those settlements amongst us in North Auckland at Pakikaikutu. In the second reading of this bill, I was the one who explained the circumstances about that settlement. What is the reason for a Ngāti Pūkenga settlement being located amongst us in Northland? I explained the story about one of yours who branched off to visit his sister, Te Rore, the wife of Wharepoaka. When he got inland, he went to meet his sister, but a scoundrel from within Ngāti Wai, not from within Ngāpuhi, killed and murdered that man. Consequently, when that ancestor, Te Tirarau, found out that killing was wrongful, he handed over that part, that settlement, Pakikaikutu, to Ngāti Pūkenga, so that they, Ngāti Pūkenga, could stay amongst us of North Auckland.

That story is one that links you to us, but there is another one, which relates to that battle amongst us of Ruapekapeka. At the time when Kāwiti and Hone Heke were at the heat of battle, Hone Heke turned and asked: where is Kaharau? In other words, where are the relatives of the younger brother? What is Hokianga’s reason for not coming to help us of Taumārere? The request had gone out for others to come and assist to help fight Ngāti Hine, shoulder to shoulder. These were the ones who turned up: Ngāti Manu, Te Kapotai, Patukeha, and some from Mangakāhia. Ngāti Pūkenga also arrived.

So here I am, a relative of those esteemed ones of Ngāpuhi, acknowledging your ancestors who came at that time to fight as one, shoulder to shoulder, and as a consequence of that, I extend this invitation to you collectively to come to Ruapekapeka on 28 October, so that we can celebrate and remember our ancestors who shed their blood on the mountain of Haruru Tapuwae. And so our huge appreciation to you, Ngāti Pūkenga, and your ancestors for that assistance of theirs to us, and as a result of that I now turn to the bill.]

Ngāti Pūkenga, it must be acknowledged that as an iwi you did not participate in the war in Tauranga because your tūpuna were committed to upholding the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it was the Crown that was ultimately responsible for the outbreak of war in Tauranga in 1864. The actions of the Crown were a breach of Te Tiriti. As a result, since that time you have all been disadvantaged by the actions of the Crown. The confiscation and raupatu at Tauranga Moana and the Tauranga District Lands Acts of 1867 and 1868 unjustifiably extinguished the customary title of Te Tāwera Ngāti Pūkenga and the land within that confiscation district. It breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has set out a lot of the history, and we always turn to talk about the compensation. We keep saying that compensation is just a fraction of the value of the worth of what happened. We all acknowledge it is totally unfair, but we also acknowledge that we must move on from here. We always use Tainui and Ngāi Tahu as examples of what iwi can do when they settle and have some pūtea just to start and grow the wealth and well-being of their people—of their iwi and their hapū. On that note, we wish the same for Ngāti Pūkenga, and that from here on in it is a new leaf, a new start, and a new beginning—always remembering what happened and never forgetting it, lest we repeat those sorts of actions.

Ngāti Pūkenga, this is a great day for you. It is a great day for Māoridom, because your success is also our success. Our whakapapa is interconnected—Mr Speaker, if you did not quite pick up on what I was saying in Māori. At the Battle of Ruapekapeka, when Hone Heke was under siege, he asked “Where is Kaharau?”, meaning: “Where are the people of Hokianga? They should be coming to help their relations over on the other side of the island, in the Bay of Islands.” Some tribes did turn up—Ngāti Manu, Te Kapotai, Te Patukeha, a few individuals from Mangakāhia Valley—but also Ngāti Pūkenga arrived, to help Hone Heke and Kāwiti at the great Battle of Ruapekapeka, which ended the Land Wars in the Tai Tokerau area. It is just fitting that they are here today and that I can extend the invitation—because on 28 October we are beginning the commemoration of the Māori Land Wars, and the first commemoration is at Ruapekapeka, and it is an opportunity to extend the invitation to them. Their ancestors and our ancestors fought shoulder to shoulder and shed blood at Ruapekapeka. For that, Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi are eternally grateful. Without a doubt, they would be guests of honour up at Ruapekapeka on that day.

I will not drag things out, other than to say that it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak on this bill, and to acknowledge you all. Thank you very much for coming down to Wellington from Tauranga and Pakikaikutu, that little bastion of Ngāti Pūkenga amongst us, up in the Tai Tokerau. Nā reira tātau mā, huri rauna tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[And so greetings and acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all throughout.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. E koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā o Ngāti Pūkenga, ngā mokopuna hoki, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira, kia ora.

[Elderly men and womenfolk, esteemed ones of Ngāti Pūkenga, and grandchildren as well, there is much acknowledgment to you. Welcome and come hither to the highly important day, greetings.]

I stand to deliver a speech that was given to me today by the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako. He has had to go. His father-in-law passed in Ahitereiria, and so he flies out very shortly to Australia. Without any further ado, I too want to add my congratulations to Ngāti Pūkenga on this third and final reading, and so I will now read out the speech that was to be delivered by the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

It is a significant day in the eyes of Ngāti Pūkenga iwi today—to finally witness their Treaty settlement bill being read a final time. This comes 15 months after the bill was first introduced to the House, and more than 4 years since the deed was signed. But it reflects many more years of hard work on the part of Ngāti Pūkenga to get to this stage. Their time has finally arrived, and Ngāti Pūkenga is about to begin a new journey of making this settlement work for them and for their future.

I want to acknowledge the negotiators who worked on this settlement. When the chair last checked on the Ngāti Pūkenga website, this team was described as “the wedge battle formation”. It is made up of Rāhera Ōhia, Shane Ashby, the late Awanui Black, Harry Haerengarangi Mikaere, Āreta Gray, and Dominic Wilson—ka mihi.

I also want to acknowledge the Crown’s chief negotiator on this settlement, Dame Patsy Reddy, who I am sure will be delighted that, after her work on this settlement, she will soon have the opportunity to sign the settlement off in the legislative procedure.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, whose vision, drive, and intensive work programmes are what make this Government’s astounding progress on Treaty settlement bills possible. Just look at last night, when we saw the incredible foresight at play when we completed the second reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill. It was not a Treaty settlement bill—it was a local bill—but it had a similar outcome for Te Atiawa on land claims.

Ngāti Pūkenga suffered extensive land confiscation, as we have heard, by the Crown in the 19th century. Even when the now landless iwi received gifts of land from other iwi, the Crown’s individualisation of titles resulted in the alienation of that land. In our modern world, it is hard to imagine the level of bad faith exercised by the Crown to iwi like Ngāti Pūkenga. This was an iwi that thought it could place its trust in the Crown, which signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and in a Governor who promised that it would scrupulously respect Ngāti Pūkenga’s interest. As we now know from history, the promised scruples were in short supply. Ngāti Pūkenga were fragmented, spread throughout the wide area, and even now face challenges in working together as a distinct entity.

I want to acknowledge the strong leadership. This has brought together iwi members from areas as distant as Whangarei, the Coromandel, Maketū, and Tauranga to work together for their common purpose.

This settlement firstly acknowledges the history of the Crown’s actions that have negatively impacted on Ngāti Pūkenga and gives the Crown’s apology for them. It provides cultural redress that recognises the associations Ngāti Pūkenga has with particular places and allows for iwi to work with the Crown to protect and enhance the conservation values of those sites. Four sites of importance will be transferred to Ngāti Pūkenga, and statutory acknowledgments are provided for each of those sites. The Crown is also providing payments for revitalisation of Ngāti Pūkenga culture and the revitalisation of the marae at Manaia. It also provides commercial redress, in the form of $7 million, which gives Ngāti Pūkenga the opportunity to develop their economic base, which will provide the well-being for their people and into the future. It is a start.

Today’s proceedings bring the settlement journey to a close, but now a new journey and a new challenge opens up for Ngāti Pūkenga and its leaders. Your wisdom and your actions now will determine how well this settlement increases the opportunities available to your people and provides a bright future for Ngāti Pūkenga. I wish you all the best in this endeavour.

This commercial redress cannot, and does not, fully compensate Ngāti Pūkenga for what they have lost through the Crown’s actions. No Treaty settlement can do that. Ngāti Pūkenga have displayed their generosity by accepting this settlement, which has been offered as a full and final settlement of their claims. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, e ngā iwi, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tuatahi, ka tika, me mihi atu rā ki a Tutehounuku Korako me tana karakia hei whakawātea i te wāhanga mō ēnei kōrero i tēnei ata. Tuarua, me mihi atu rā ki Te Minita, ōna mahi hei tiaki ngā whakahaeretanga e pā ana ki ngā whakataunga kerēme. Tuatoru, ki a koutou o Ngāti Pūkenga, ka nui te mihi atu ki ngā koroheke, ngā rūruhi, koutou katoa i taemai nei i runga i te manako o ngā mātua tūpuna, kia ea koutou i roto i ēnei o ngā mahi.

[Firstly, it is apt that I acknowledge Tutehounuku Korako and his prayer to clear the part for these contributions this morning. Secondly, I must acknowledge the Minister indeed and his work in taking care of operations concerning claim settlements. Thirdly, to you collectively of Ngāti Pūkenga, there is much acknowledgment to you, elderly men and womenfolk, to you all who have arrived here upon the desires of the ancestral foremothers and fathers so that you are satisfied within these tasks.]

I reflected on the historical contribution that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made, and it is certainly true. In all Treaty settlements the Minister has a strong grasp of the history and the encounters between the Crown and iwi Māori from 1840 to this point. It has been demonstrated time and time again in a number of Treaty settlement readings.

In so far as Tauranga Moana is concerned, I wanted to highlight a couple of things. Firstly, I want to acknowledge those negotiators who confirmed the deed of settlement—Rāhera Ōhia, Harry Haerengarangi Mikaere, Hōri Parata, Rehua Smallman, and Regina Berghan—on behalf of Ngāti Pūkenga and the trustees of Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust. I do that because the responsibility of taking some very difficult challenges of resolving historical grievances, in the hope that you can build a better future, is by no means a small feat. They did it in mind of the number of Wai claimants that would be included, and they have been listed in the legislation that we are passing today.

I make that comment because this is a difficult process, and those iwi who have gone through the process often wonder: “Is it a risk too great? Is the time now? Should we wait?”. With all those things in mind, they still continue to go forward because the aspirations of the future are too great and outweigh some of the challenges of the present. So I respect that.

I want to say that in so far as the history that the Minister outlined is concerned, whether or not Ngāti Pūkenga signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and whether or not Ngāti Pūkenga participated in the wars of Tauranga Moana, the Crown acted indiscriminately, and in the confiscation of lands in Tauranga Moana, Ngāti Pūkenga was prejudicially affected.

So the way in which Ngāti Pūkenga—and you only need look at the map of where the various interests of Ngāti Pūkenga reside in Whangarei, in Manaia, in Hauraki, and in Tauranga Moana. You get a sense that the mass dissipation of an iwi actually, as a result of confiscations, fundamentally impacted on a range of things—not just access to your whenua, where you were from originally, but your knowledge of that area and your relationship to that area. Even relocating to other areas, and the history surrounding that, provide a range of, I guess, new and contemporary tensions, albeit established back in the 1800s, and a new way of working with neighbours who have now become whanaunga.

It is no small feat to try to address the issues for Ngāti Pūkenga in a comprehensive way, with the hope that, at some part of our historical commitment to Ngāti Pūkenga, on both sides of the House, in progressing a Treaty settlement, there will be enough institutional knowledge to say that the obligation on the Crown is high, no matter what the size of the settlement is. The obligation is high because the people have been dissipated, yet they are trying to do something in unity for everybody.

That is evident to me in a number of ways. Firstly, Ngāti Pūkenga establishing their cultural connection across the areas where they currently reside is absolutely important. What overlays that, and is not necessarily evident in the legislation, is the ability of Ngāti Pūkenga to repatriate and tell their history in a way that honours the current state of where they reside, why they reside there, and what that then means for successive generations.

But here is the thing. The relationship redress contained in Ngāti Pūkenga’s deed of settlement, which is not evident in the legislation, will actually be probably the proof of the pudding about the Crown’s ongoing commitment to Ngāti Pūkenga. So if you go through the range of relationship instruments or letters of introduction and protocols that Ngāti Pūkenga have expressed, it is evident to me, at first glance, that it is about how to derive the greatest amount of value for the people—the descendants of Ngāti Pūkenga—and education is key.

Many of those letters of introduction cover a range of educational tertiary institutions that span the whole area from Whangarei right down to Raukawa, as well as Government agencies in the cultural and heritage spaces—also primary production, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. So when I make a note of the relationship redress instruments in that range of aspirations around the relationships there, it seems to me that will be the proof of the pudding about the commitment of the Crown, not only to restore its mana but to commit to a future relationship with Ngāti Pūkenga, so that they can grow their aspirations, for the benefit of their whole people—notwithstanding their dissipated location of where they actually reside now.

So that is hopeful. It can only really be achieved, again, with the leadership of the iwi and with the commitment of the Crown going forward, but it is hopeful. We should ensure that our commitment as parliamentarians—because, by and large, we have had a unanimous approach to Treaty settlements. No matter what side of the House you sit on, that is the hope that we should give voice to as we commit to these Treaty settlements.

The next thing I would say, in terms of the Ngāti Pūkenga settlement, is that some of the redress remains outstanding, in relation to the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective. As was set out by agreement by the Māori Affairs Committee earlier this morning, the redress and remedies around Tauranga Moana have been excluded.

I did not want to, I guess, stand and not mention these things, because I saw them as important, and I wanted to give an assurance, certainly from our members who are on the select committee and from our side of the House, that the proof of the pudding for Ngāti Pūkenga will be in the future relationship with the Crown.

It is so important that people hear the story of Ngāti Pūkenga as you work through how this Treaty settlement is going to leverage and give greater opportunity to the next generation. One small comparator: it is a little bit like in our own rohe within Tainui waka, Ngāti Apakura—indiscriminately affected as a result of raupatu, widely dispersed from Taupō, all throughout Maniapoto and Waikato, and if there were true gypsies of the Waikato confiscations, it was Apakura. So there is a huge obligation within iwi but also on the Crown to try to make sure that we do much more in this regard to support the aspirations, because the actions of the Crown were indiscriminate. No matter where Ngāti Pūkenga stood at a certain point of time, the actions of the Crown were indiscriminate.

We often recognise that the Crown acknowledgments and the apologies of Treaty settlements for the iwi are the most important thing because it holds the Crown to account. I am not going to, in this instance, read it out—time does not afford it of me—but I do want to signal, while there is a Minister in the House, that the inclusion of local content into the education curriculum, certainly in so far as young people learning their own history within their own rohe, can often be derived from the history in the deed of settlement that has been set out, the apology, and the Crown acknowledgments. We should continue to foster our education system towards repatriating local history into our schools so that all our kids know what happened, but, more importantly, what iwi did to try to move the next generation into a better space.

Nō reira, he iti nāku, nāku te raurau mō tēnei kete kōrero hei āwhina i tēnei tūāhuatanga. Ngāti Pūkenga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, a small contribution from me; this receptacle is mine for this contribution basket to help this situation. Acknowledgments, congratulations, and well done to you, Ngāti Pūkenga, and to us all.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā, e ngā iwi, kia ora mai tātou. It is a pleasure to speak to this bill in its third reading, a Treaty settlement bill that has all the features of a well-formed settlement bill: firstly, the apologies and acknowledgment; secondly, cultural redress; and, thirdly, commercial redress. There are also significant other components in the deed of settlement that are not in the bill because they do not require legislative authorisation. This includes cultural redress: a $500,000 cultural revitalisation project and a $180,000 marae revitalisation project component. Also, commercial redress not in this bill includes a quantum of $7 million in interest in commercial redress of properties.

These are some of the structural elements to the settlement, but I want to briefly talk to the wider picture in a non-fiscal manner. I started off by saying that it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill—a generic pleasantry, maybe, to start a contribution, but today it really is a pleasure, a rare and very timely pleasure with 3 more sitting days before the House rises. To elaborate, I am the elected MP for Whangarei, and it has been a sadness to me, and I know to others, that in this parliamentary term no Treaty settlement has settled in the boundaries of my electorate.

My electorate is also encompassed by the Te Tai Tokerau Māori seat held by my colleague Kelvin Davis, but Kelvin has had the pleasure of many Treaty settlements across Tai Tokerau, so his cup is not empty. In contrast, with 3 sitting days to go, my cupboard was looking very bare. The electoral cycle was going to come to an end, and Treaty settlements in Whangarei would be unrequited and unfulfilled for another time—but Ngāti Pūkenga have saved the day. At the completion of this third reading, Ngāti Pūkenga will settle, and the electorate of Whangarei will have its first Treaty settlement.

When I raised this with the wise heads of the Northland Regional Council a few weeks ago, they asked “But how can that be, when Ngāti Pūkenga are a more southern presence around Tauranga, Maketū, and Manaia in the Coromandel?”. Well, as a colleague alluded to in a previous reading, Ngāti Pūkenga have a historical presence in my electorate, about 7 km out of Whangarei, through Onerahi and along Whangarei Heads Road is that beautiful place colloquially known as Tamaterau, which is also known as Pakikaikutu.

The historical oral and website account describes a division of Ngāti Pūkenga, led by venerated chief Moeroa, on a mission to buy firearms and munitions from the European and American traders in and around Russell. On their journey they passed the entrance to Whangarei Harbour, and one of the warriors expressed a desire to visit his sister, Te Rore, and so was let off and the flotilla continued on. Reaching a small river, the young warrior stooped to partake of the crystal clear waters and soothe his parched throat when an assailant ambushed him and killed him.

Back in the Bay of Islands, word reached Moeroa and his army that their comrade had met a terrible fate. Now well armed and primed for battle, the canoe sailed forth from the Bay of Islands to Whangarei. Te Tirarau and the other chiefs of Whangarei also heard the news of this treacherous act and that Ngāti Pūkenga were on the war path and none of them were safe. As it was one of their own who was the perpetrator, they considered what the best course of action might be. Some advocated war preparations while others advocated caution, as Ngāti Pūkenga’s reputation as a warrior race preceded them. In fact, these people had been called on previously by Whangarei iwi Te Parawhau to assist them in their battles, in which they were victorious. They were not to be trifled with.

Te Tirarau and other chiefs decided that because the reason for Pūkenga’s advance was in fact just, they must respond as rangatira, and so they decided they would meet the war party at Pārua Bay en masse. Making quick time, the majority of Whangarei chiefs made their way to await Ngāti Pūkenga. The two iwi met on the shores of Pārua Bay and prepared to engage in a war. Local chief Te Tirarau spoke of the killing as a treacherous deed that must be paid for, and suggested that for the killing of their kinsman the local tribes would gift Ngāti Pūkenga the place where the man was felled. More than that, the area would be larger so that they could remain on the land to become tangata whenua along with the other tribes of Whangarei. Moeroa contemplated this offer and finally said that he would accept the whenua as compensation, that this action would wipe the slate clean, and from that time on Ngāti Pūkenga would be equal in mana with the other tribes. Moeroa and his people settled the land known as Pakikaikutu. Moeroa died in his 90s and is buried at Pakikaikutu-Tamaterau.

Ngāti Wai are my iwi, in the large natural grouping of this area, and speaking with them, they are very pleased for Ngāti Pūkenga to be settling today. Settlement discussions went well, and resolutions around boundaries out to the tidal margin and out to the heads also went well, not only with Ngāti Wai but also with Te Waiariki, and so today Ngāti Wai and other local iwi join with you in celebration.

In conclusion, I join with you in celebration, a celebration that is, of course, much wider than my small area of electoral representation. This is a celebration of acknowledgment of the past and hope for the future for the people of Ngāti Pūkenga, and history will record you as the first settling iwi of Whangarei. For that, I both congratulate you and thank you. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare Nui, tēnā koutou e te whānau whānui o Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Tāwera, and Ngāti Hā, nau mai, haere mai, piki mai ki Te Whare Pāremata.

[Greetings to you collectively, the Big House, and to you, the extended family of Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Tāwera, and Ngāti Hā, welcome, come hither, and climb aboard Parliament House.]

I would like to start by acknowledging the negotiators and the team with Āreta Gray and others. I would like to also acknowledge your loss of your great man Awanui Black. I would like to acknowledge the connection that I feel very deeply to Manaia and to the Mikaere whānau and Harry Mikaere’s work on this. I have not mentioned all the people, I do not know all the people; I am very privileged to speak, though, about any of you.

This is my last Treaty speech in the House before I return to Hauraki. I have been extremely privileged to speak on Treaty bills as a Pākehā in this Whare and extremely privileged that the last one should be for these people who have a connection to where I live, in their rohe—part of their rohe. They have many, many places to stand. I just want to acknowledge those places to stand, as we have heard previously: Tauranga, Maketū, Whangarei—as my colleague has just described—and Manaia in Hauraki. I thank the people for travelling all that way. It is a long journey, a very long journey. Not everybody gets to jump on a plane all the time like politicians. Some people have to drive those roads, and we welcome you to this Whare.

I am very pleased we have got here in time, before the House rises. I know that Ngāti Pūkenga were very keen to get this done before the end of this term of Parliament, and with all the complexities around some of this, it has been a long struggle, so congratulations—you got here; get it done. I know there are other issues to be settled around the moana, but at least this iwi can move forward and say they have reached this point, so all honour to you.

I do want to briefly look back at the history, and there is too much to talk about, so I will just acknowledge some small examples of what has happened to these people. We say things very glibly in this House; it rolls off the tongue that after the Land Wars, these people who were not participating in the raruraru were given £350 by the Crown for 50,000 acres—50,000 acres. It is hard to even hold in the mind’s eye the scope of all that whenua and what goes with it: all the life, the births, the deaths, the kai-gathering, the tradition, the culture, the economic base of those 50,000 acres and £350.

Some things never change. However, it was not just what happened in the 1800s that we need to stand up and talk about; it is also what happened through the Māori Land Court. You could say the Māori Land Court was an instrument of worse oppression than the gun, because you can see the war coming, but when the war is through the court, it is a special form of torture. The way that the Māori Land Court treated Ngāti Pūkenga in terms of forcing the individualisation of land blocks—not only Ngāti Pūkenga, many, many, many iwi experienced this, but Ngāti Pūkenga experienced a full attack via these provisions.

That is how a culture is destroyed as its collective being, to individualise land blocks. The main commitment that colonisation took was to individualise, to divide, and to rule. In the 1970s this was still going on. I know it was, because I moved to Hauraki in the 1970s, and Auntie Betty Williams—whaea; kuia now—told me about what happened to her mother’s land block in the 1970s, and why she fought that in the 1970s when the small blocks were once again under attack by the Māori Land Court. The whānau blocks of land, and more land, were alienated.

I just want to stand for a moment to acknowledge kuia Betty Williams, who came to my valedictory on Tuesday but could not stay. She is from Manaia—she is Ngāti Pūkenga. When it comes to the redress that is in this bill, people like her stood up and fought for their whenua, and they fought for the Manaia Harbour, and they fought for the rivers and the rohe. Multinationals wanted to take the land and explore that harbour, the beautiful Manaia Harbour, for mining, and kuia like Auntie Betty and her whānau stood up. So we should never forget that this is not just about ancient history. We need to teach our people that this is about the 20th century’s continual use of the tools of oppression against these people—not just in Manaia but right through the rohe of Ngāti Pūkenga. So, just acknowledging that kuia who taught me that if you want to stand in her rohe, you stand for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

It is good to see in the redress that places like the Manaia Harbour and the Manaia River are actually part of that, and the beautiful marae that has been part of the restoration of resources for Manaia. I am sorry that I am talking about just this part of the rohe; I know there is a lot more, but it is good to see and I know that they are leading now in education. Their kura kaupapa is renowned throughout the rohe. So it is to their credit that all of these things are happening.

I want to talk generally now back to the settlement, and back to an issue that I mentioned in the second reading because it was brought to us by Ngāti Pūkenga around issues of right of first refusal. I just want to say thank you. You, Ngāti Pūkenga, have inspired us, te Rōpū Kākāriki, to talk about the need for a review of the Treaty settlement process, because there are anomalous things that happen, that are not talked about, but you, yourselves, brought this to us. So thank you for bringing that right of first refusal: the fact that it says in all the settlements that it can also be offered to a charitable trust. This, to me, is like saying: “We’ve stolen your car, and we’re offering you back a hubcap, but if one of the thieves’ families wants to have the hubcap first, you can have second dibs on that hubcap, and it’s a little bit bent, but he aha!”.

So I think that Ngāti Pūkenga must be given credit for raising this issue and saying that just because it is in every settlement, does not mean that it is right. That is why we stand for—we do not believe in full and final settlement, in the Greens. We believe that Te Tiriti commits us, particularly article 2, to an ongoing relationship of negotiation based on respecting the rangatiratanga of the tangata whenua. And Ngāti Pūkenga, you, sorry, they—you are not meant to say “you” in the House because otherwise it means the Speaker and he gets cross with me—have laid down the wero to this Parliament about rights of first refusal. I want to acknowledge too that the Ministers are always open to debate on these issues and I really appreciate that. I really do appreciate that.

So thank you Ngāti Pūkenga. Thank you for reminding us that—$5 million is not a hell of a lot of money, but you are going to make the best of it, and you are going to hold us to account, and the apology is important. There is a lot to apologise for—getting back to the hubcap—but, actually, one of the most important things in this very positive settlement is the focus on education and cultural heritage. I wish that we all would dedicate our lives, not just tangata whenua, to educating everybody in Aotearoa about the true nature of the basis of this country and what has happened, and how it has happened; who stole what hubcap from whom, and how we are all part of the healing.

I want to thank Ngāti Pūkenga, in all of their sites where they stand so powerfully, for bringing up the issues, for standing for their own people, and, in standing for their own, for actually challenging us to educate our own. Te Rōpū Kākāriki is committed that there should be this education, there should be this respect, and there should be this review of Treaty processes. Always honouring, not settling, is the kaupapa. Kia ora tātou. Ngā mihi nui ki ta Ngāti Pūkenga. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to thank Catherine Delahunty, my ex-classmate, for her final contribution in the House. There have been a few Onslow College people come and go from the House, and there is no doubt that Catherine has continued the passionate style to which we have been accustomed. Thank you, Catherine.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Te mea tuatahi e tika ana kia mihi kau ana ki tō tātau hoa a Tutehounuku, nāna i whakarite tō tātou nohoanga mō te rā nei, nā reira, e kara, tēnā koe. Koutou nō Ngāti Pūkenga, koutou i tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o Te Whare nei kia whakamana tā koutou kerēme ki te taraipiunara, nā reira, nau mai, haere mai! Haere mai, pīkautia mai ngā tini aituā kei waenganui i a koutou ki te tūhonono ki tēnei o ngā mate kei waenganui i a mātau. Nā reira, e tika ana kia whakahuangia e tōku tuakana a Kelvin, a Wīremu rāua ko Te Awanuiārangi nā te mea, i te wā e ora ana, nā rāua i tū kaha ana ki te kawe atu i tēnei kaupapa, engari, i muri mai i tō rāua hingatanga, nā, ka taka mai wēnā kaupapa ki runga i a koutou, nā reira, e kore e mimiti te puna kōrero mō rātou engari, e kī nei te kōrero haere, haere hoki atu! Nā, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[The first thing is it is apt that a compliment be accorded to our colleague Tutehounuku. He considered a prayer for our sitting on this day, therefore well done. To you collectively of Ngāti Pūkenga, who alighted here upon the call of this House to enact your claim to the tribunal, welcome, come hither! Come forth with the myriad of deaths that are amongst you to link to this one of the deaths within us. Therefore it is apt for my elder sibling, Kelvin, to mention Wīremu and Te Awanuiārangi, because when they were alive, they were resolute in bringing this proposal forth, but when they passed away then these matters dropped upon you. And so the pool of talk about them will never run dry, but the aphorism says this: depart, go forth, farewell! I come back now to us the living, and so acknowledgments, accolades, and salutations to you collectively.]

Like for all third readings of Treaty claims, being from the North I stand and unashamedly say that I am jealous. I belong to, allegedly, the biggest tribe in New Zealand and yet we cannot get to this stage—in fact, we cannot even get to the negotiating table. This is the second settlement bill that we have heard today and I must congratulate those who have been responsible for bringing this bill to this stage. I just wonder whether or not it is a message to Ngāpuhi that perhaps we should put a woman in charge of the negotiations. But then that should not be a surprise coming from someone who is descended from, and whose tribe is named after, a woman—Hineamaru.

Nā reira, e tika ana kia mihi kau ana ki a koutou e Ngāti Pūkenga engari, i roto i te pire nei, e tika ana kia whakahuangia ēnei o ngā hapū ō koutou, ko Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Tāwera me Ngāti Hā, me Ngāti Kiorekino, Ngāti Hinemotu, Ngāti Rākau, Ngāti Te Mātau, Ngāi Tōwhare, and Ngāti Whākina. Nā reira, e rapa ana i ngā ingoa o aua hapū i roto i ngā ripoata o Te Whare nei.

[Therefore it is apt that I should indeed acknowledge you collectively, Ngāti Pūkenga, but in this bill it is appropriate for these hapū of yours to be mentioned: Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Tāwera, Ngāti Hā, Ngāti Kiorekino, Ngāti Hinemotu, Ngāti Rākau, Ngāti Te Mātau, Ngāi Tōwhare, and Ngāti Whākina. So I am looking for the names of those hapū in the reports of this House.]

I do not want to reiterate the history that has culminated in this bill coming before the House today. I think we are all quite clear on why this bill has come here and why this settlement is taking place. I think one of the good things that will come out of it is that discussions are already being had about having this history included in our curriculum. I have no doubts that the history of Ngāti Pūkenga will be one of those that will be recited throughout the country, because of the historical nature of a peaceful iwi—well, they certainly were regarded as peaceful at that time—but having paid the price, the ultimate price of that stance that they took of not participating in that battle. It does contribute to the dark side of our history. I say “our history” because, whether we like it or not, the Crown’s activity is part of our history. To me, to see the apology that has been given by the Crown, while it is given with such sincerity it will never, ever replace the damage that it has done to Ngāti Pūkenga.

So I just want to reiterate my congratulations to those people who have been responsible for carrying this kaupapa on behalf of their people. I also want to say that in the previous bill that came before the House this morning my tuakana Peeni referred to the Scriptures—that there is a time for love and there is a time for hate, talking of the different seasons. Today is part of that process that Ngāti Pūkenga have taken—ngā piki, ngā heke.

Can I say—and I want to take the liberty of saying this—that this is only a start of a new journey that they are going to take, and there will be ups and downs, but it will be incumbent on those whom the iwi put their faith in to determine how that journey takes place going into the future. I say this because I can recall my father giving me this word of advice after, in my own hapū—or we call it an iwi; we are probably the only ones who refer to Ngāti Hine as an iwi—I was given the responsibility of chairing our rūnanga. He said: “Boy, if you think you’re a leader of your people, never forget to look behind you, because if there’s no one there then ask the question ‘Who are you leading?’ ”. That will be the challenge for those people who will be charged with carrying the future of Ngāti Pūkenga and its fortunes. No doubt, the very people whom you serve will be the very ones who will give you the roughest time. I kī mai wētahi, wēnā te āhuatanga o Te Māori, wēnā te āhuatanga o wā rātou aroha ki a tātou.

[Some have said that that is a Māori trait, that is the feature of their empathy towards us.]

We heard, earlier on, the connection to the North, particularly of Pakikaikutu. As my tuakana also said in an earlier debate, when people succeed then we are related to them, but if they do not, “Oh, don’t know that fulla.” Well, I want to just say that that connection between Ngāti Hine and Ngāti Pūkenga is already there. You just ask Bentham—Bentham knows. In terms of that relationship, I hope that from time to time this mere mortal from Ngāti Hine might avail myself of your generosity.

Kia ahatia! Engari e tika ana kia mihi tonu ki a koutou, tōku whakaaro, tōku mihi ki a koutou korekau e pau te kaha. Engari ngā kōrero whakamutunga, ngā manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa kei runga i a koutou, ki ngā whānau, me ērā atu o ngā tupuranga kei te heke mai, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[So what! But it is still fitting for you collectively to be acknowledged, that is my view; my tribute to you will never lose its intensity. On the other hand, the closing remarks: may the kindness of the Almighty Above be upon you collectively, the families and those other generations to come, therefore greetings and acknowledgments to you collectively, and my appreciation once again to us.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, otirā, ki a koutou kua hui nei i tēnei wā, kua haere ā-kanohi mai, kua rāngona ā-taringa, kua kite ā-karu, kia rongo ā-wairua hoki ki te kupu e whārikihia nei e ēnei o ngā hoa mahi, rangatira hoki o Te Whare Mīere.

[So thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time to you collectively who have gathered here face to face at this point in time to listen, to see visibly, and to hear spiritually, as well, the message being set down here by this one of these work colleagues and esteemed ones of the Beehive too.]

Well, sometimes I wish I could just pass my speaking spot to someone else—any of you in the gallery—who knows this better than me, who knows your history better than I do, who could stand here and tell of the battles both historic and today’s. We hear you. Someone who could come down here—and, Mr Assistant Speaker, if that was something we could do I would gladly give up my place for any one of these rangatira to come down here and tell us from their lips the stories of their people. But I will make some sort of attempt today to get on to the record of this House the parts of your history that have inspired me. It is a historic day for you, and it is a historic day for Māori.

As you look around here and see that our seats are just about empty as the business of the House continues in other rooms around the place—you know, sometimes I mourn at that. I think there can be nothing more important than being here for this. There can be nothing more important than rectifying the grievances of the past—and is it a rectification, I am not sure? That is a flash word. Is it one? Does this make it right? Obviously, it never does. It is an opportunity to take stock and then look forward. All right, we know what has happened but it is time to look forward, and your people have been doing that for a long time.

I remember at Awanuiārangi’s tangi talking about building up the puna, so that when one dies it does not matter, because there are many to take their place. So that is what has happened. You are all here ready to take up your place. But as I looked over the history and I looked at the Battle of Gate Pā, I found this account and I thought you might be interested. Some of you may have read it; some maybe not. This comes from “Captain Mair’s Graphic Account of the Memorable Battle”. It says: “No satisfactory explanation has yet been given, how it happened that nearly two thousand men of Her Majesty’s forces, the finest troops known, amply provided with the best artillery and arms of precision in the world, were singly defeated by less than two hundred and fifty … warriors, whose only weapons consisted of old flint tower muskets,”—and I do not even know what this word is—“Brummagem double and single barrelled shot guns and long-handled tomahawks.”—but they were.

Then I had a look down at how the people did this, and I found this little paragraph, which I think you might love: “During the interval from their first occupation of the Gate Pa, the rebels, energetically assisted by their women folk”—just saying—“in the heaviest work,”—because women do the heaviest work; just saying again—“and being entirely unmolested, had converted a harmless looking grassy knoll into a work that was to test the calibre of British troops to the utmost. Probably there never was an instance in modern warfare where more deliberate and carefully conceived plans had been devised for securing a crushing defeat of the enemy.”

Then what did they do? They saw that, and then they rolled in with cannon fire, day after day after day. When they finally entered into the pā, having destroyed all of the palisades that had been erected, what did they find? It was empty, apart from the few fallen warriors who were there. But the people, through their trenches and through their tunnels in the middle of the night, through the gaps in the army’s regiments, had snuck off to fight another day. And yet we do not even know about this. We do not remember.

This country does not acknowledge our Land Wars. We have a date now. We have a date now to do that, and that is because of your whānau, who came to the steps of this place, and others from across the country, including the girls from Ōtorohanga, who came and demanded that we recognise the Land Wars in this country, where more Kiwis, both Māori and non-Māori, were killed than in both World Wars.

You know, you go to Gallipoli, and it is this sacred spot where those wars were raged. You go to places around the world, and they are sacred spots—you know, tapu—and then you come to the places of war in Aotearoa, and there is a road going straight through it and cows grazing on top of it.

One of the old people said to me: “Marama, you know when it’s Māori land. The roads are straight. You know if it’s Māori land. The roads are straight because they drove them straight through. And you know when it’s not Māori land, where people had already occupied it, because it goes around the farms.” Here, in the most sacred places, which should be remembered and hallowed and respected and put aside for all of Aotearoa to remember, the road goes straight through. So I thought that was quite a lot of fun, reading that account from the eyes of the British, who were despairing and saying: “How could we have lost? How could we have been defeated—the finest infantry that we had?”.

You know, your tupuna—and I had better get this right—Te Kou o Rehua signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Maungatapu in April of 1840, and when he did that, he anticipated that the Crown would protect his people’s rights and privileges, which had been repeatedly spoken of and written in the words. We all know that by the mid-1850s Ngāti Pūkenga started to go “Hold on. What’s going here? We thought we were in this together.”, nevertheless, Ngāti Pūkenga never gave up. They always stood up and always battled against the injustices that were being meted out time after time after time.

We know that because you are still here, and you still battle and, despite the pittance that is delivered by the Crown, which is supposed to make up for the injustices of the past, you still accept it and move on. But we never forget, and you do that in the example of our ancestors, who always did it. From the 1880s Ngāti Pūkenga can be seen in the records of this nation protesting about the injustices that had been meted out time and time again.

We come to this point when, finally, we can accept that we, inevitably, need to move on. As you have heard from others, they are very envious. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa is yet to come to this House to hear their first reading, and you have come to your third. Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi have yet to get it together—

Peeni Henare: No, just Ngāpuhi.

MARAMA FOX: Oh, right—sorry. There is only one side that needs to get it together, apparently, and the other side is all good. I am not sure which side he is talking about. But, you know, we sit and we have turned on each other to get to this point, when we should have been focusing our attention on our common enemy, and that is not each other.

We stand in kotahitanga, and sometimes elections are like that. They pit us against each other, even though we here are all Māori in this House. We need to come together if we are going to ever realise tino rangatiratanga on our land. Your people fought for kotahitanga. Your people stood united. Your people have continued to stand and thrive, and looking forward, despite what happens in a couple of months, or a month—40-something days—we will continue to stand and we will continue to thrive. And it does not matter who is sitting in these seats down here; it matters who is sitting in those seats up there. And here is the next generation, ready to take up the mantle of the example that you leave for them.

So I am proud to stand here and support the third reading of your bill in your time for your history and for your future. Tēnā tātou katoa.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Ngāti Pūkenga, nō reira, e whakapiri ana taku mi’i ki ngā mi’i katoa kei roto i Te W’are nei ki a koutou katoa; nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Hoi anō ki a tātau o Te W’are nei, tēnā tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is apt that I offer a tribute of acknowledgment to you collectively, the families and subtribes of Ngāti Pūkenga, and so I add my accolades to all those accorded to you all from within this House; therefore, salutations and well done to you collectively. And, as a result, my appreciation to all of us of this House, congratulations.]

It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of this Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge all of the members of Ngāti Pūkenga who have arrived here at this Whare today to hear the third reading of this bill.

I want to first of all speak about the first part of the bill, which comprises the historical account, acknowledgment, and apology. Every time I speak to a settlement bill, I try to go back to the deed of settlement and read the historical account, and just when I think I have read the saddest historical account, along comes another one. I want to acknowledge everything that is in the historical account. These historical accounts are written in quite a clinical way, I think. You do not always get the full emotion of what has happened to the iwi. So if I was to characterise what I have read, I read about conflict, about war, about raupatu, about deceit, and about dishonesty, and I wanted to recognise the full extent of the history that Ngāti Pūkenga carry today.

From that historical account, we have the acknowledgment, which acknowledges the breaches of the Treaty, and I wanted to read out one in particular. It says: “The Crown acknowledges that its confiscation/raupatu at Tauranga Moana left Ngāti Pūkenga increasingly dependent on tuku whenua lands (lands received through customary transfer) outside of Tauranga for their support, and that the wish of Te Kou o Rehua expressed in his ōhākī for all Ngāti Pūkenga at Manaia to return to Tauranga Moana has not been realised.” That is an acknowledgment from the Crown in recognition of what is in the historical account. My colleague Peeni Henare pointed out to me about some land at Akerama that was gifted to Patarau—that is near Ruapekapeka—as one example of that tuku whenua.

I think it is important that this House recognises the full extent of what has happened to Ngāti Pūkenga. I will not go through all of the acknowledgments, but I also want to refer to the apology. There is a very clear structure to these settlements in this legislation: historical account, acknowledgment, and then, of course, the apology. The last clause of the apology reads: “The Crown acknowledges the suffering it caused Ngāti Pūkenga through its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. This settlement will, the Crown sincerely hopes, mark the beginning of a new relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pūkenga that is founded on respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

I think that, to me, recognising that first part of the bill is the most important part of this process. It is part of the start, hopefully, of the process of reconciliation over what has happened, the pathway forward, and the means by which that can happen. The means by which that can happen is, of course, through the cultural redress and the commercial redress.

First of all, I want to congratulate the negotiators on negotiating a comprehensive package of redress mechanisms, which includes cultural revitalisation, cultural reconnection, and relationship protocols. The cultural revitalisation mechanism that is in the bill is really important. I cannot imagine the impact on the Ngāti Pūkenga traditions and Ngāti Pūkenga Reo by the iwi being distributed from Tauranga Moana all the way up to Tai Tokerau. That must surely have had a huge impact on the traditions, culture, and language of Ngāti Pūkenga. Through that cultural revitalisation it is my sincere hope that Ngāti Pūkenga will be able to move forward positively and reconcile all of those disparities that it has to face for the future. Like previous settlements, it is an act of generosity of Ngāti Pūkenga in accepting this Treaty settlement.

To finish on a positive note moving forward, I wish Ngāti Pūkenga all the best for the future; that this settlement and the totality of this package moves Ngāti Pūkenga forward; and that, indeed, as it states in the apology, there is a new relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Pūkenga. I also hope that the relationships with all our whakapapa and whanaungatanga between all iwi in the areas that Ngāti Pūkenga reside can also move forward as well. I think that the legacy that will be handed to the next generation is a good one, and one that is full of hope and opportunity for the future.

If I can also acknowledge other speakers on this bill today: in particular, I do want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her contributions to all settlement bills, including the first reading of the Ngāti Apa settlement, which I was a negotiator for. I remember very clearly the contribution that she made. I think she used the hubcap analogy in that one as well—it was so true.

I also want to acknowledge Mr Pita Paraone for his contributions, which are always consistent and always, I think, if anything, encouraging, because I have whakapapa to Tai Tokerau as well. I acknowledge his persistence in wanting to see a conclusion to the Ngāpuhi settlements as well.

Nō reira, kāore e roa taku kōrero i tēnei wā, oti noa, e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu anō ki ngā uri o Tāwera, o Ngāti Haonga, o Ngāti Pūkenga, nō reira, koutou mā, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawa nui i roto i tēnei ā’uatanga, nō reira, tēnā tātau katoa.

[My contribution as a consequence is not a long one at this moment, but it is appropriate once again for me to accord a tribute to the descendants of Tāwera, Ngāti Haonga, and Ngāti Pūkenga, so, to you and the others, be strong, bold, and really stout of heart in this one of the circumstances, and, accordingly, my appreciation to us all.]

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Haka

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you. I get a sense of how my ancestors felt. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.11 p.m. (Thursday)