Tuesday, 15 August 2017

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2017

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

India and Pakistan—Independence Anniversaries

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate acknowledging the 70th anniversary of independence of the Republic of India, and acknowledging the Independence Day of Pakistan.

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

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I move, That this House congratulate the Republic of India on the occasion of its 70th anniversary of independence, marking the day on which the United Kingdom’s Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act 1947, and that the House also acknowledge Pakistan’s Independence Day, which was yesterday, 14 August.

Motion agreed to.

Speaker’s Statements

Valedictory Statement—Dr Kennedy Graham

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have determined, under Standing Order 360(3), that Dr Kennedy Graham will make a valedictory statement at 5.40 tomorrow afternoon.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I seek the leave of the House to suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of the valedictory statement tomorrow.

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

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Youth Justice—Proposed Military Academies

1. JACINDA ARDERN (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s previous support of “evidence-based investment practices”; if so, does the Government intend to send young people charged with serious offences to a military camp, despite the Prime Minister’s Science Advisor saying boot camps don’t reduce reoffending?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. It is important that—if you want to actually achieve results with public spending, you need to know what works. In answer to the second part of the question, what we have announced is a Defence-led training academy involving 12 months of intensive wraparound support for 150 of the most challenging young people in New Zealand, as an alternative to them serving out their sentences in prison. This is a new policy. It has not been tried before. We are not prepared to sit back and allow ongoing lack of success in changing the lives of the most challenging 150 young people in the country.

Jacinda Ardern: What evidence did he take from the failed corrective training camps he has used in the past and the failed boot camps he used in 2009 to these new boot camps?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the member may be pleased to know that, for quite a number of the young people in those schemes, they did work well. But it is part of our approach to take the lessons from what has been tried, to change it, improve it, and tailor our programmes to the needs of small groups, families, and individuals—in this case, 150 young people who have been convicted of the most serious crimes with sentences of up to 14 years. Labour’s approach is to roll out lightweight, branded programmes without any care as to whether they work or not, spending taxpayers’ money to show they care.

Jacinda Ardern: Did he consult the Children’s Commissioner and former Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, before implementing this policy, who says that sentencing youth offenders to boot camp is “arguably the least successful sentence in the Western World.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all, it would be inappropriate to consult the Children’s Commissioner on a party policy. Secondly, he has made the mistake of listening to the Labour Party’s description of the policy. The policy is not 6 weeks of short, sharp time living in a tent doing push-ups; the policy is 12 months intensive wraparound for young people whose sentences range up to 14 years because they have committed murder, rape, aggravated robbery—[Interruption]—well, we never give up on these young people. We believe there is always hope and we can always do better than sending them to prison where they learn how to live a life of crime.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need substantially less interjection from both sides of the House, please. [Interruption] Order! I have just asked for less interjection.

Jacinda Ardern: Why does he think it is important to give young offenders practical life skills, but the idea of teaching those same skills Labour has called for as part of its school leavers’ tool kit would cause “chaos”, as he said yesterday?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would certainly be happier talking about our policy than that policy, because it sums up the difference, you see. The Labour leader raised it. The Labour policy is a typical broad brush that is loosely specified and aimed at no one in particular to try to show that its members care. Our policy is adapted and tailored to the particular group and its needs, and is designed to change lives. Our policy is about these serious young offenders; Labour’s policy is about a lightweight announcement to fill the media for a day.

Jacinda Ardern: Why is he opposing a plan supported by employers, Local Government New Zealand, and schools to give our young people the practical skills they need in adult life, like driving, like workplace skills, and like budgeting?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are not opposing a plan; we are opposing a reheated, lightweight announcement that is opposed by secondary school principals. The Government is focused on policy that is tailored to the needs of particularly our most vulnerable and most challenging. The money that that member might want to spray around to show that Labour cares—we are focusing on grappling with some of New Zealand’s most challenging social problems, and, in this case, the 150 most difficult young people in New Zealand. If we can change their lives, then we change things for this country for the next 30 years.

Jacinda Ardern: Has he seen the evidence from the Automobile Association that shows that through things like issuing free driver licences and driver training, we have the opportunity to deal more effectively with young drivers, reduce offending and fines, and reduce the burden on our courts, while supporting young people?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The difference here is that Labour wants to show that it cares; this Government actually cares. That is the difference. The member may not know that there are already a number of targeted driver licence programmes designed to reduce driver offending and enable employability with those young people who actually need it. The member may also not be familiar with the trend that fewer young people are getting their licences. I would have thought, as the member for an inner-city metropolitan seat, she would know that.

Jacinda Ardern: Will he join with me—[Interruption]; genuine offer; genuine offer—in investing in young people using programmes that work, that will make a difference, and that will help young people to make a contribution to New Zealand, rather than investing in failed programmes that nobody else supports?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our measure is not political support for a programme; our measure is whether we can change the lives of 150 young people, whose lives have been defined by violence, by fragmented families, by drug and alcohol addiction, by sexual abuse, and by serious criminal offending. Frankly, I do not care if there is not broad political support. We care about changing the lives of these most challenging young people.

Economic Growth—Wage Growth and Productivity

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

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; particularly on the over $400 million the Government has spent on freshwater improvement that is lifting the quality of water in our waterways, including the $100 million improvement fund set aside in the Budget and the $44 million of projects that we announced recently, right around New Zealand, which engage communities in the project of raising the quality of their waterways that they care about. I would welcome the Greens support for such a move now that it has decided to be a green party.

James Shaw: Why did real average wages in the private sector fall by 0.5 percent in the year to June 2017 despite a growing economy?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the last 8 years, the average wage has risen by twice the rate of inflation. A good measure of that is to look at what has happened to national superannuation, because it is tied to the after-tax ordinary-time weekly wage—the average wage—and national superannuation has risen at twice the rate of inflation—

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —over the last 8 years, whatever the most recent quarterly figures.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, James Shaw.

James Shaw: The Prime Minister was not referring to the question about real average wages in the private sector, which fell by 0.5 percent; he was talking about overall wages.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that, but when I look at the generality of the primary question that has been asked—and I invite the member to look at Speaker’s rulings 191/3 and 191/4—on this occasion, because of the generality of that primary question, I think the answer given by the Prime Minister has addressed the question.

James Shaw: Why did real average wages in the private sector fall by 1.1 percent in the year to March 2017 despite a growing economy; are declining real wages the best that he can deliver after 9 years?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out, over the last 8 years, wages have risen at twice the rate of inflation, and that translates through into national superannuation. The amount of money that people take home will be significantly assisted by the Family Incomes Package, announced in the Budget and implemented on 1 April. People will see the benefits of reductions in the tax on their income, increases in the per-child payments for the children in their family, and, also, significant extra assistance with housing costs, which means that, on average, 1.3 million people will be $26 a week better off, and some will be over $100 a week better off if they have high housing costs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it one of his policies for one of his Government’s Ministers to use his department to attack, behind his back, the Australian Deputy Prime Minister at the behest of the Australian Labor Party, so much so that the Australian Foreign Minister is saying right now that if there is a change of Government in New Zealand, they would not be interested in working with them?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have thought the member would be well informed on that, because his fellow Opposition party seems to be in a bit of a shambles about what its story is over its role in working with the Australian Labor Party. These are serious issues—to interfere in another country’s politics—and it appears there have been significant misjudgments by the member’s fellow Opposition party. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! My patience just cannot continue to be as well controlled as it has been. If members want to have a discussion with their parliamentary colleagues, go outside and do so. Do not continue to chat across the Chamber. There are one or two members I specifically have my eye on, and if they continue to interject, I may well ask them to leave.

James Shaw: Why are people’s wages going backwards when we have historically low interest rates, highly favourable terms of trade, an economic stimulus from rebuilding Christchurch and the housing shortage in Auckland, and a booming tourism sector; is this honestly the best his Government can do?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said over time, real wages have risen. Wages have gone up at twice the rate of inflation. I am particularly pleased with the number of jobs that this economy has been generating—180,000 over the last 2 years—which means that more older people are staying on in the workforce, thousands of people have come off benefit and into work, and school-leavers have more opportunity now to find a job than has been the case for decades. Some of those people will not be as productive as they will end up being, but they are most welcome in our workforce. If the member is suggesting there are too many jobs and that we would be more productive and have higher wages if we had fewer new jobs, then I simply disagree with him.

James Shaw: Speaking of productivity, is the real problem with wage stagnation that labour productivity growth has been zero for the last 4 years, as Treasury has found, and without labour productivity growth there can be no meaningful long-term gains for working people?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Firstly, I understand the member’s calculations are wrong. But as I said before, this is an economy producing thousands of new jobs—180,000 over the last 2 years—and that means a lot of people with lower skills and less experience now have the opportunity to join the workforce, so much so that we have the highest proportion of the adult population in work than New Zealand has ever had. More of our adult population is in work than has ever been the case. If the member believes they should all be more productive, he is welcome to turn up to the workplace and shout at them and tell them to work harder, but we welcome them coming into the workforce.

James Shaw: Does he agree with business journalist Brian Fallow, who said recently that “the top decile has been pulling away … particularly swiftly on National’s watch.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reference I would send the member to is what is now, I think, called the Bryan Perry report, which is produced by a Government agency every year, with many measures—many measures—of inequality. They show an equality flat to falling. The next step is, of course, the Family Incomes Package, which comes into effect on 1 April next year. According to one of the measures in that report—an international measure—that incomes package on 1 April will reduce child poverty in New Zealand by 30 percent. I think that would be a big step forward.

James Shaw: Speaking of that report, is he concerned that the benefits of New Zealand’s economic growth are not being evenly shared given that household incomes at the 90th percentile have risen 14.7 percent since 2009 while those at the 10th percentile have increased only 9.4 percent?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: This seems to rebut the numbers the member just used, saying that there was no income growth. Now he is saying that the lower decile rose by 10 percent. Well, of course, I would have to check the member’s figures, but I can tell you this: you can only spread the benefits of growth when the economy is growing, and the economy is not going to grow if it is going to be burdened with half a dozen new taxes, wasteful Government spending, and policy that does not understand how wealth is created by our businesses. That member is part of an Opposition that is campaigning to do that.

Economic Outlook—Reports, Forecasts, and Confidence

3. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the prospects for the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I have received a number of reports that show strong prospects for growth, including last week’s Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Statement. There is also the latest Performance of Services Index data, out yesterday, which says the economy remains firmly in expansion mode, with a reading of 56 points in July. That sector’s overall activity remains above the long-term average, with the employment and new business expectations the clear standouts in July. The services sector accounts for around two-thirds of the New Zealand economy and has now been in expansion for 6 continuous years.

Nuk Korako: How is the manufacturing side of the economy faring?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Good question. Like the services sector, the manufacturing sector is also performing well, with the manufacturing index reading of 55.4 points in July. All five of the sub-indices—production, employment, new orders, finished stock, and deliveries—remained firmly in expansion in the month. The manufacturing sector has now been in expansion since October 2012, almost 6 years of continuous expansion—in fact, roughly since the Labour Party started declaring it a crisis. The momentum looks set to continue, with BNZ economist Doug Steel saying it bodes well for manufacturing GDP growth to continue outperforming its long-run average, as it has for the last 3 years.

Nuk Korako: How does New Zealand’s economic performance compare with other countries?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Both the Reserve Bank and the OECD forecast that New Zealand’s economic growth will come in around 3 percent for this year. This compares with expected growth rates for the UK of 1.6 percent—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s rubbish. Take off immigration.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —1.6 percent, Mr Peters—the US of 2.1 percent, and Australia of 2.5 percent. This is an important reminder that it is only through a growing economy that we are able to increase the number of jobs, lift after-tax wages, and, of course, pay for the Family Incomes Package, which comes into effect in April next year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, if your population growth rate is 2 percent and your GDP is at 3 percent, then 1 percent does not cut it, and it is down the bottom of the OECD—why do you not tell the public the truth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member, I think, suffers from what I call the “Peters fallacy”, which is that he thinks that it is immigration that drives growth, but it is growth that drives immigration. The reason people want to work in this country instead of over in Australia, like they have been for almost his entire adult life—which is quite a long time—is that this country is growing these days. They used to export the kids to Australia; now Australia exports the kids to New Zealand.

Nuk Korako: What is underpinning the very high levels of confidence in the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am tempted to believe that it is because most businesses do not listen to the MP for Northland. The Government’s ongoing programme of economic reform underpins the confidence the economy has seen over a number of years. Whether it is maintaining our broad based - low rate tax system, keeping debt down, or providing core infrastructure, our strong economic plan is giving businesses the confidence to invest, to hire more people, and to compete on the world stage. It is the intention of this Government to continue to support this confidence and not choke it off with a whole bunch of new taxes.

Economy—Commentary and Productivity

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “the long-term problem of New Zealand productivity is yet to be solved, but we’re actually heading in the right direction”; if so, what is Treasury’s estimate of labour productivity growth in the year to March 2017 according to the July 2017 Monthly Economic Indicators report?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes. Since 2009 real GDP per capita in New Zealand has grown 9 percent, which is one measure of productivity. Another measure used by the OECD is GDP per hour worked, which has increased 9.6 percent since 2008, and we are heading in the right direction by investing more in R & D, economic development, and tertiary skills training to help boost our productivity. In terms of the Treasury report, it was minus 0.4 percent for March 2017. I would like to congratulate the member on finding, once again, the one negative quarter from the last nine quarters.

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

Grant Robertson: Why would Bernard Doyle from JBWere say that New Zealand has “been in a productivity recession since 2012”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I suggest that the member puts that question to him. I would say this, though: I note in his report he said that he was saying to his investors that they should not invest in New Zealand because of this so-called productivity recession. So, presumably, he is not proposing that they invest in Canada, or Europe, or in Great Britain, or in the US, or indeed the G7, or indeed the whole OECD, because New Zealand’s productivity performance over the last 8 years is better than all of those other places.

Grant Robertson: So is he saying that Bernard Doyle from JBWere is wrong, when he says, “For the past five years, all of our economic growth has relied on more people working more hours.”—in other words, not on growing productivity?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think I demonstrated clearly in my answer to the last question, I do disagree with him that New Zealand’s productivity is not growing, because, quite patently, over the last 8 years it has grown faster than all these other places: Canada, Europe, Great Britain, the US, the G7, and indeed the average of the whole OECD. That is according to the OECD. That is not according to JBWere, or to me; that is according to the OECD. But it would not be a surprise that the number of hours worked for New Zealanders has grown since 2012, because that was the aftermath of the global financial crisis and, since that time, the amount of work done by New Zealanders in terms of hours worked, and the fact that more people are working, has grown substantially since 2012.

Grant Robertson: So if JBWere is wrong, is Treasury also wrong when it said, on page 9 of the Monthly Economic Indicators, that average productivity growth over the past 4 March years was essentially flat, minus 0.03 percent?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate, given the member’s nickname of “Trainspotter”, he would have to go through and look for that. All I can do is show him that the performance of New Zealand over an 8-year period in productivity—and productivity should be taken over a longer period; over 8 years—is 9.6 percent on GDP per hour worked. Interestingly, the 8 years prior to that, it was just 5 percent. So it was 9.6 percent for the last 8 years, with the 8 years prior to that, just 5 percent. I am, for the life of me, trying to work out what changed in 2008.

Grant Robertson: Are Treasury, JBWere, and Brian Fallow all wrong when they say that there has been virtually zero productivity growth in New Zealand for the last 4 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I am saying the member is wrong, because the reality is that the whole world’s productivity growth over the last 8 years has not been that strong, but New Zealand has been stronger than most. For the 8 years prior to that, the world was a bit stronger, and New Zealand was weaker than most. So what we are now seeing is that New Zealand’s productivity performance is improving relative to the countries that we compare ourselves with, which improves our long-term incomes, which is why we are growing faster than those countries.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The final question I asked had a list of people and when I asked whether they were wrong, it was specifically over the number for the last 4 years and the Minister did not address that.

Mr SPEAKER: I have already thought of a way forward on this. I think the question has been addressed, but the way forward is I am going to allow the member an additional supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the recent OECD analysis that states: “In the long run, raising productivity is the only way—”

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I allowed the member an additional supplementary question so, by nature, we would all hope that it would be a completely different question.

Grant Robertson: Indeed, I know. Well, I gave up on the last one. Does he agree with recent OECD analysis that states: “In the long run, raising productivity is the only way to raise living standards.”; if so, what does 4 years of falling productivity in New Zealand tell us about what has happened to New Zealand’s living standards?

Mr SPEAKER: I gave the member one additional question, not two.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I agree with the OECD, which is why it is so good that New Zealand’s productivity over the last 8 years has improved, and I say this for the member again, because the member is not listening: it has improved faster than Canada, faster than Europe, faster than Great Britain, faster than the USA, faster than the average across the whole OECD, and faster than the G7.

Grant Robertson: Four years, Steven.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Look, I appreciate the member wants to train spot about a smaller part of that, and that is his way, but, actually, if you look at what the OECD is saying about the importance of long-run productivity—and I showed the member long-run productivity—you would think he would be happy for New Zealand.

Immigration, Minister—Confidence

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Immigration; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; he is a hard-working and competent Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When economists such as Michael Reddell, former Reserve Bank of New Zealand adviser, and Dr Ganesh Nana, chief economist at Business and Economic Research, both agree with New Zealand First that—[Interruption] No, it is no use trying to shout me down—

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To quote them: “Mass immigration is undermining the ability of our economy to achieve productivity growth” and, further, “setting ourselves up for some significant negative costs over the longer term.”—why has this Minister been asleep at the wheel all these years?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: He has not. In fact, the Minister has delivered on what is good government for New Zealand and the economy, and that is the ability to get the skills into New Zealand for the thousands of jobs that are available. For instance, the forecast is that we will build 200,000 houses over the next 6 years—that is four times the size of Hamilton—plus the infrastructure, so we need the people who are going to be able to build the houses, because they have to be built.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Immigration when fraud and corruption are widespread in the office of Immigration New Zealand (INZ) in Mumbai, where it uncovered 265 education agents submitting false information, 338 applications used by imposters, 340 applications with fraudulent funds, and countless other forged documents—all this in just May of this year?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that proves that the immigration department is on the job, because the reason the member can quote those numbers is that the people got caught. Of course, you have to be vigilant in any immigration system, because New Zealand has become such an attractive country that people are willing to break the law to get here. They are willing to break the law to get here, but we will not let that happen. The immigration department caught those fraudsters and they will face the consequences.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in a Minister who did not learn the lessons of 2012—for example, when there were countless investigations, found to be merited, into fraudulent visas, and when INZ staff were accepting fraudulent applications from family members; was it because that accountant makes him look exciting?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, in 2012 I think the fact that people got caught then proves that they were on the job. But the most successful part of the immigration policy has been the Kiwis staying home. In the last 5 years, 150,000 people who were predicted to leave New Zealand actually stayed here, and that is success.

Mental Health Services—Funding

6. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm the details of the $100 million social investment fund for mental health, and how will it help provide earlier intervention and improve services for New Zealanders suffering from mental health issues?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): In line with international trends, the demand for mental health services has increased significantly in recent times. Yesterday the Government announced a package of 17 new initiatives designed to improve access to effective and responsive mental health services while, at the same time, starting to shift our focus towards prevention, early intervention, and resilience building. The new approach includes improving mental health across the life course by helping to build resilience in children and young people and by addressing known risk factors, including trauma, early on in life. This $100 million package is part of the $224 million boost for mental health services delivered in Budget 2017.

Barbara Kuriger: What areas will the $100 million package focus on?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The package divides into four groupings: firstly, a $23 million schools-based package focused on building student resilience and increasing access to appropriate services. Secondly, there is $50 million across a range of primary and community mental health care initiatives, including $5 million for suicide support and $8 million to further improve support for people experiencing acute and emergency mental health needs. Thirdly, there is $10 million for a distance and e-therapy package, which will play a significant role in delivering accessible care. Finally, there is $20 million for adapting, trialling, and evaluating successful overseas programmes so they can be applied here in New Zealand. While there is further work to be done to transform our approach to mental health, I am confident that we are heading in the right direction.

Dr David Clark: After 9 years, does he think it is acceptable that right before an election, after the policies had to be rewritten outside his department, the Government re-announces mental health funding that it has not even appropriated yet?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is totally incorrect. There was $100 million as part of that $224 million package during Budget 2017. That was appropriated, and yesterday we announced the detail of that package. I think the member would be asking further questions if we had not announced the detail. So he wants to have it both ways.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table documents showing that the national mental health service appropriation in Budget 2017 is $22 million less than in Budget 2008.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want the source of the document.

Dr David Clark: It is a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library today and delivered to my office.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table that particular Parliamentary Library information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

State and Social Housing—Housing Stock and Salvation Army Report

7. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she agree with the Salvation Army that the Government needs to increase the number of social houses it builds by 20 times to meet demand?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): No.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she only allocate $36 million a year for the next 4 years for social housing, which, at a maximum, will provide only 90 additional houses a year?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member is wrong, both in terms of the amount of money available and the number of houses we are providing for.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why does the Government not have comprehensive build programmes for high - growth demand areas outside of Auckland, like Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Marlborough, and Nelson?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, again, the member is wrong. The Government has comprehensive purchasing intentions right across the areas of high demand, and, in fact, the Government is the one that has already committed to building more than 2,000 social houses a year, which is what the Salvation Army said is necessary, and the only group that has come out committing to build only half of what the Sallies wanted is the Labour Party.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is she proud of the fact that under the current Government the social housing stock has now fallen to fewer than 5 percent of the total housing stock?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, what I am proud of is that this is a Government that has got a comprehensive plan to deliver social housing across New Zealand and that this is a Government that is committed to building 2,000 new social houses a year—more than double what Labour has said it will build.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she accept we would not need so many additional houses if her Government had not sold off 5,000 State houses, which, even when you factor in the increase in community housing, is a total reduction, resulting in a total reduction of 3,000 houses?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The House might be interested to know that, actually, in the time that we have been in Government, the number of income-related rent subsidies has increased under this Government from what was in place. If you look at the Salvation Army report that the member’s primary question talked about, the Salvation Army was the one that made it very clear that it does not matter who owns the houses; what matters is that we are getting the right houses available to the right people and the right support, and that is exactly what our social housing reform programme does.

Schools—Learning Support Services and Communities of Learning

8. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made that will enable more young people to succeed in the education system?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): On Friday I was pleased to announce that thousands more children and young people will benefit from a new approach that is making it easier for children to access additional learning support services. We are rolling out a pilot that has been trialled in three Bay of Plenty communities of learning to up to another 30 communities of learning and schools across the country. This will see the pilot expand out to another 70,000 children and young people in early learning services and schools. This is part of our ambitious work programme, which has seen funding for learning support increase by over 30 percent since 2008. Budget 2017 alone provided an additional $63 million over the next 4 years to support more young people.

Sarah Dowie: How does this announcement fit into wider education system changes that ensure our young people succeed?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Over this term of Government, we have made significant changes to ensure that our education system is delivering for young people. The learning support announcement is part of a wider plan to improve the lives of young people. This involves our funding system review, the scrapping of the decile system, the increasing of Vote Education from $8 billion to $11 billion, implementing significant change in terms of a $360 million investment in communities of learning, modernising our school infrastructure—a $5 billion investment—and the implementation of digital technologies. In comparison, I note the report that recently said a low level of thinking is not helpful, which was from the secondary school principals association regarding Labour’s policy.

Sarah Dowie: What are some of the results that she has seen that demonstrate more young people are being successful in the education system?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The most significant thing that the Government has done for our young people is ensure that they have the qualifications needed to go on to employment and further studies. In 2016 approximately 85 percent of 18-year-olds had NCEA level 2—a 17 percent lift on 2008. Additionally, we have increased participation in early learning to nearly 97 percent. That means thousands more children in early learning. We also have more than half a million children now in communities of learning, which is a significant achievement in terms of collaboration of schools.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her predecessor’s promise that entry into communities of learning would be voluntary for schools; if so, why should children attending schools that are not part of a community of learning be denied access to the additional learning support?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I welcome the question from this member. I just want to check that this question is not actually from the Australian Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will stand and answer that question properly, or else she will leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order! I am giving the Minister one more chance to address the question as asked.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Communities of learning are voluntary.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of that question was why students should be denied access—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No; the member also knows the rules. If he goes back and looks at his question, it was actually two questions, and the Minister has addressed one—eventually.

Education System—Affordability

9. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her comments on education affordability; if so, how?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made. This financial year our investment in education amounts to over $11 billion, the highest ever investment in public education. Funding for schools has gone up by 35 percent since 2008-09, and operational grant funding has increased by 37 percent. In fact, no other OECD country spends a higher percentage of public funding on education.

Tracey Martin: As the overarching education Minister, what reports has she seen regarding the Government’s reduction in the post-secondary education budget from 2.9 percent of GDP in 2009-10 to only 1.67 percent of GDP according to Treasury’s Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2016?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have not seen those direct reports, but, as I have said before, there is a range of different measures out there that show what we are doing in terms of increasing investment, from the overall increase from $8 billion to more than $11 billion to other areas of Vote Education, such as the affordability studies in terms of early learning, which show it is a third more affordable since 2007. There is a range of other measures that are out there that show that we are improving affordability of education.

Tracey Martin: As the overarching education Minister, does she stand by her statement that “We are … incredibly focused on ensuring that we have reform of our tertiary education system.”?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I would have to check where those comments were made, but if I talk to my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, there is a range of different policies that are being looked at, including the fact that we have done more than ever to ensure that young people are either in vocational training or in places like Youth Guarantee, which is a core hallmark of this Government to help more disadvantaged young people.

Tracey Martin: Why are she and her Government continuing to deny that fully funded post-secondary education is affordable, as shown by New Zealand First’s upfront investment policy, which replaces the burden of financial student debt with a skill debt to New Zealand?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do not think we at all are denying that education is affordable. In fact, as I said before, there is a range of different measures that are showing that it is more affordable. If you look at early learning, it is a third more affordable than in 2007. In terms of school donations, I think they are about 1.8 percent of overall funding. In terms of the overall Vote Education, it has gone from $8 billion to $11 billion. So it just depends on the different measure that you use.

Southern District Health Board—Funding and Access to Services

10. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the New Zealand Medical Association’s president that “district health boards were grossly underfunded” and that “there’s just not enough money in the system, no matter how you cut your cloth, you just can’t do what’s required of you when there is not enough money going in”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No, but it is election time, and a range of views start coming to the surface.

Dr David Clark: After 9 years, will he listen to orthopaedic surgeons who are saying that one-third of patients at Dunedin Hospital are not receiving the surgery that they need to cope with chronic hip, knee, and other joint pain?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Obviously, there have been issues at Southern District Health Board (DHB), which have been addressed and are in the process of being addressed. I mean, for instance, in orthopaedics there has been a 40 percent rise in specialist appointments over the last 9 years; that is a considerable increase. In terms of elective surgery at Southern DHB, that has increased by 33 percent over the last 9 years. So there is a huge increase in operations and appointments, way ahead of the population growth. The member needs to cheer up and stop talking down the hospital on a continual basis.

Dr David Clark: What does he say to Dunedin man Stuart Neill who observed an understaffed and under-resourced Dunedin Hospital last week when he was called in for urgent surgery for advanced bladder cancer, after his file had been misplaced for months following a prostate examination?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not familiar with Stuart’s case, but what I would say is that it is imperative that Southern DHB continues to lift its game. Obviously, there have been issues there over time. That is why we had to sack the board in 2015. The commissioner has got a task ahead of her, which she is getting into, and she is turning the place around, but it is no easy task; not helped by the member.

Dr David Clark: Does he still stand by his answer in the House last Thursday that there were no financial penalties for Southern DHB for not achieving surgical targets when one of his commissioner team has now admitted that, due to this failure, $1 million is being withheld from the DHB by the Ministry of Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Obviously, as with everything this member puts up, I would have to go back and check the transcript, but the fact is that Southern District Health Board is not being punished financially.

Dr David Clark: After 9 years, does he think it is acceptable that last year nearly 60,000 New Zealanders did not receive the specialist appointment at the hospital that their GP recommended?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: At which hospital?

Dr David Clark: Hospitals in New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what the member actually knows is that in total only 5 percent of people were turned away from a hospital appointment. Eighty-seven percent of GP referrals went straight to the specialist appointment; another 8 percent were inappropriately referred, perhaps to the wrong department; 5 percent did not get their appointment. But the bigger picture is that there has been a 150,000 increase in specialist appointments across the country and a 50,000 increase in elective surgeries, so the member really needs to get on board and cheer up. It is a lot better than he is saying.

Irrigation and Water Storage—Waimea Community Dam

11. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the economic and environmental benefits of the Waimea Community Dam?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have received a report that shows that the Waimea Community Dam near Nelson would deliver major economic and environmental benefits. The dam would enable unirrigated pasture to be converted to higher value crops like apples, and improve the overall water quality. The report shows that building a dam would more than double the average annual catchment profit. Converting from pasture to apples means that nitrogen leaching would be lower. Of course, this is only achievable with a reliable source of water. A dam would also safeguard minimum flows in the Waimea River, recharge aquifers, provide water for municipal supplies, and improve water quality for recreational use.

Alastair Scott: What potential challenges does the Waimea Community Dam face in getting up and running?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. Two potential scenarios would impact the viability of this scheme. The first would be the removal of Crown support for the scheme. Like many other community projects with wide-ranging benefits, there is a role for Government support to help these schemes get up and running. The second scenario would be a water tax for the scheme. This scenario, of course, raises many questions—questions like whether residents would have to pay the charge, given that their water would come from a water storage project—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was hoping this question would find some answer that was relevant, but now it is speculation, and seeing as it is in the Tasman electorate and not the Wairarapa, it is also compounded by going on for far too long.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. It is a legitimate question; I ruled it in order, and the Minister can continue his answer.

Hon NATHAN GUY: A couple of other questions: would this scheme even be viable with an additional tax—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister’s job is to answer questions, not to ask questions. If he has something to continue to answer the question, that is fine. Is there a further supplementary question? I will give the member the chance to wrap up.

Hon NATHAN GUY: I would like to carry on. Another important point to conclude this question is that a recent report estimated that the economic cost to the Nelson-Tasman region of not building a dam would be more than $1 billion over 25 years.

Maureen Pugh: Is the Waimea Community Dam unique compared with other proposed schemes across the country?

Hon NATHAN GUY: No, I do not consider that it is too dissimilar to many other schemes, particularly when you bear in mind that it is about economics, it is about the environmental gains, and it is about the social gains as well, with water being supplied to town municipal supplies. I would say that agreeing to support one scheme in the fine print of a policy but not other schemes would be a major inconsistency based on very flimsy principles. This kind of position would really highlight a policy for what it is. It is ill-thought-out, ill-conceived, and a blatant attack on farmers who, ultimately, may transfer to growing apples. I seek leave to table a detailed policy, which has not publicly been released yet, that confirms that the Waimea Community Dam will proceed under a Labour Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, there is no need for me to put that leave to the House.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a report on the Waimea dam that shows that it will cost 59c per cubic metre of water.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to know the source of that document.

Hon Damien O’Connor: The document is a commerce report.

Mr SPEAKER: By?

Hon Damien O’Connor: By a Peter Fraser.

Mr SPEAKER: And is it already in the public arena?

Hon Damien O’Connor: It has been commissioned for an individual. It is in the public arena, but—

Mr SPEAKER: Then I do not need to put the leave. [Interruption] Order! I realise it is getting very close to election time, but I need a bit more order, please.

State and Social Housing—Availability, Homelessness, and Housing Stock

12. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister for Social Housing: Why has Housing New Zealand built only 125 more houses than it has demolished across New Zealand since June 2009?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): Housing New Zealand houses are demolished for a number of reasons—for example, being earthquake prone, fire damage, significant meth contamination, or for redevelopment. In many parts of New Zealand the increase in demand is relatively recent and did not previously warrant large increases in supply. Looking at the figures nationally does not take into account local demand and variation. It is also worth noting that significant increases to stock in areas of high demand like Auckland were not possible until plan changes under the Auckland Unitary Plan took place. Since that has been confirmed the Government has signed off on a multibillion-dollar programme to build 13,500 new social houses in Auckland alone, as well as large build programmes in areas like Christchurch, Wellington, and the Hutt Valley.

Marama Davidson: Why has it taken children living in carparks and caravan parks for the Minister to commit to acquiring at least 2,000 more social houses each year, as today’s Salvation Army Taking Stock report has suggested as a necessary minimum?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned in an earlier answer to the House, the Government committed to that level of building in the purchasing intentions announced last year. As to the issue of people living in cars and not in secure houses, that is an issue that has plagued New Zealand since well through the last Labour-Greens Government. At least we are dealing with it.

Marama Davidson: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that pensioners, beneficiaries, and other low-income New Zealanders may be paying up to 75 percent of their income in rent due to the shortage of safe housing caused by the Government’s failure to build enough State houses?

Hon AMY ADAMS: There are two things I would say in response to that. The first is that in terms of the population of New Zealand, the per capita rate of people waiting for social housing has gone down under this Government. The second thing I would say is that this Government, in Budget 2017, put up the accommodation supplement rates. We thank the Greens for supporting that; it is a pity Labour did not. And last year, this Government became the first Government in 43 years to put up benefit payments to help people in need.

Marama Davidson: Does the Minister concede that decreasing State housing stock has caused the highest level of homelessness in the OECD and put undue strain on low-income renters?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Again, referring to an answer I gave earlier in question time, there are actually more income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) places available now than there were under the Labour-Greens Government. I do not accept the number that the member refers to from the Yale report. If New Zealand measured its homelessness the way countries like Japan do, we would be one of the very best in the world. Even that report said you cannot use it to compare countries.

Urgent Questions

Drinking-water Contamination—North Dunedin

1. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to ensure the mistakes in Havelock North are not repeated in the latest water contamination scare in North Dunedin?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The Report of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry: Stage 1 stated that “Responses to the August 2016 outbreak were generally well handled, particularly by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board”. As regards North Dunedin, the Ministry of Health is aware of the situation and is being kept informed, but it is important to note that this situation is currently being managed by the city council. I am advised that the cause of contamination is not yet known, and that no associated illness has been reported at this stage.

Dr David Clark: Has the Minister requested a notice in every mailbox or a knock on every door to avoid a repetition of Havelock North, where some residents did not learn of the risk for days?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The situation is being handled by the city council. The ministry was advised at 11 o’clock this morning, and I am getting further briefings—

Dr David Clark: Stay in Rio; leave them to it.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —but I do not think that is actually going to be necessary in this particular situation. It appears to be quite different from Havelock North, and I would encourage the member, once again, to try to be constructive.

Bills

Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill

In Committee

MATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for all parts, the schedules, and the clauses to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to make some comments in this stage of the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. As this House has heard many times, this bill has its background in the unfortunate events of the prisoner Phillip Traynor, as he was originally known as a young child. He later became known as Phillip Smith and he absconded from New Zealand.

A review of that incident led to the conclusion that although there were some simple preventative steps that could have been taken—such as a phone call to the person who was sponsoring his weekend release, which might have prevented that absconding event—there is some benefit in changing the laws so that the authorities that are there managing prisoners or, for that matter, other people who are detained by the State in other circumstances have better access to information so as to better manage either their detention, their temporary release, or their post-release conditions. So for that reason we have long supported this bill. So, hopefully, this stage of the legislative procedure need not detain this Committee for too long.

I did, however, want to draw attention to just one or two aspects of it. Part 1 of the bill makes changes to the Privacy Act. It is a very important piece of legislation. It is a fundamental right that every citizen has—that information collected and gathered by the State and other authorities is used for the purpose for which it is collected, and that it is properly protected. But getting the balance between the safety and security of the community, particularly when it comes to prisoners, and the fundamental right to privacy is important. When it comes to the safety and security of the community and the management of prisoners and those who are at risk of absconding, then it is right that the threshold against which we typically regard good privacy measures is somewhat lowered or somewhat relaxed.

These changes allow the collection of information that presently is not mandated or authorised and also allow access to that information by agencies that presently do not have access to it. It is important when we are looking at lowering the threshold and the protections of fundamental rights like privacy that there are appropriate safeguards. It is important to see that in this case the access to information, this new extra information, must be tied to a specified purpose and that agencies that have access to information and do get access to that information then report on it in their annual reporting to this House.

I do query new section 109F, in clause 6, which allows, through an Order in Council, the change to an entire schedule to the Privacy Act, which seems to me to be going beyond a desirable exercise of that power by the executive. If Parliament approved the schedule, then Parliament should be the one that amends it or repeals it or otherwise changes it. I simply draw the Committee’s attention to that.

In Part 2 there are amendments to a whole slew of pieces of legislation, largely dealing with either the collection of information—and therefore the access to it—or dealing with the agencies that will have access to the new types of information, the biometric information, to be gathered under this legislation. It is right that those agencies should have access to it, that their power should be clearly spelt out, and that there should be appropriate safeguards to it.

And then, finally, there is the change in Part 2 to the Victims’ Rights Act, which creates an expediency for victims of crime who have registered a representative to take information about the perpetrator of crimes against that victim, in that there may be circumstances where it is not expedient for the authorities to go to the representative, and where it is important for the safety and security of that victim for the authorities to go directly to the victim to let them know there has been an escape, or that there is a person who has been released to the community, or has absconded and therefore poses a risk to that victim.

So that is all agreed. That is understood, and it is for that reason that we will continue to support this bill.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of this bill today, the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. We have heard today that this bill is in the name of the Hon Amy Adams and is a result of the Government inquiry into the matters that relate to the escape of Phillip John Smith/Traynor, who did manage to acquire a passport and leave New Zealand and end up in Brazil while he was on temporary release from prison. The inquiry found that it was through inadequate sharing of information between some agencies that this was actually possible. So this bill sets out to close those loopholes that found Mr Smith, or Traynor, able to abscond from New Zealand.

Part 1 of this bill is the part that amends the Privacy Act, which is the principal part of this bill. It relates to identity information and the accessing of that information. Attached to the bill is new schedule 4A, inserted by clause 8. Schedule 4A sets out the list of agencies that are able to access information. They include the Department of Corrections, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Immigration New Zealand, the Ministry of Health and district health boards, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the New Zealand Police. The holder agencies of that information includes those agencies I have just listed and also includes the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Included in the information that is able to be accessed is the information that is known as biographical details and they include the name, the address, the date of birth, and the gender of the person. The biometric information includes things like a photograph or facial recognition or iris photography. The details that are expected to be accessed would include things like the person’s travel documents, their certificates of identity, and distinguishing physical features such as amputations, tattoos, or birthmarks.

The reporting of this information that is being shared as part of the accountability to this bill requires that the chief executives of the holder agencies must also report, in every annual report, on the details of the operation of this part of the bill and also in terms of new schedule 4A.

There was a great deal of consideration given to the Privacy Commissioner’s response and, in relation to the Orders in Council, the Minister, in making any adjustment to the schedule, must be satisfied that this relates to the specific function of the legislation’s accessing agency and the identity information must actually be reasonable to the purpose for which it is being sought. That is my contribution today, and I thank you.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Chairperson. I joined the Law and Order Committee in the latter part of it, when this bill was coming to the latter part of the select committee’s consideration. Generally speaking, I thought that, in the main, the key parts of the bill are common-sense changes that allow the Government departments to better share information, in order to avoid a similar case to the one mentioned by the previous speaker, Maureen Pugh, with regard to Phillip John Smith. The only point that we raised then, and will continue to raise, is that it is a shame it took something like the Phillip John Smith case to highlight the gaps.

There is another point that I want to make to this Committee, which was raised by many of the submitters. It has to do with the information sharing between agencies. There were many submitters who submitted that in terms of Part 10A in new schedule 4A, information sharing was unnecessary as there were already approved information-sharing agreements between agencies, and that was already available. Therefore, those submitters felt that by legislating for this, it actually gave much broader powers and broader potential, I suspect, for corrupt practices to occur if we did not have sufficient controls around the way that that information was shared.

I point that out because from time to time I get complaints, mainly from the Muslim community who travel overseas, in particular when somebody in the family has died. You see, at our borders we sort of collect that information, and when we see that somebody has paid for an airfare the day before, and with cash, that person becomes sort of suspicious in terms of raising the antennae of border control, when in reality the reason why that would occur is, in accordance with the Muslim faith, that once somebody dies they have got to bury that person immediately, within a certain time frame, and therefore there is no planning for those travels. It must be immediate, and often it requires most families, instead of using a credit card, to use cash in order to be at the airport quickly, fly to the family, and bury their dead, before the time frame runs out for that to happen. When they return, they are then picked up at the border, and our border controls feel somewhat suspicious about the way that their travel was planned, or the lack of planning thereof.

I raise that as one of the issues where, when we give powers to Government agencies, particularly for collecting biometric information and for the controlling of travels for those who are on parole, often our systems seem to pick up people unnecessarily, simply because of a lack of information, or the information that has to do with their travel plans raises red flags at our borders.

But none the less there was general support, I would say, by the committee. I think many in the committee felt that the Act provided an existing legislative framework for those approved information-sharing agreements, and they believed that the matters listed in new schedule 4A could be achieved by having six approved information-sharing agreements covering the information exchanges between the accessing agency and the holder agency.

But notwithstanding that, I think, as we move forward and as we tend to give more powers to our Government agencies, we do need to ensure that we have oversight of that. We have got to protect our reputation, and so far we have an international reputation that is well formulated and one that establishes us as being very credible, establishes us as a country with high integrity, and so forth. I would hate for any Government, whether past or present, to move into an area where we simply give massive huge powers to Government agencies to do this kind of work without any oversight, particularly when it comes to the sharing of information, where we value our information—[Bell rung] thank you, Mr Chair; I do not have very long to go—where we value our own personal information, and it can get caught up in the whole scheme of things. It is not necessarily those people whom we are wanting to capture.

In the report, “Requirement to import and identify what information-sharing is occurring”—I think that that is important, that we agree that “a requirement to report on the operation of Schedule 4A would provide further accountability.” However, the Law and Order Committee did “not propose prescribing how reporting should take place; this would ensure that agencies have sufficient flexibility to incorporate this process into their existing annual reports.” None the less, the majority of the committee felt that agencies should have flexibility in reporting back. It is still important, I think, that we have that oversight and that this House in particular needs to keep track of those particular reports on how that information is shared and which agencies are sharing any feedback from the general public about how they are treated. That is all I wanted to share with the Committee at this point in time.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): It is a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. There is a lot of work that has gone on in the Law and Order Committee with regard to the tidying up of the processes in this bill. Particularly, with the queries that we had, we are quite satisfied that those queries have been answered. We had a query about privacy and the period of time that the information is held by various law enforcement agencies. This is actually a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction. However, we have decided to still support this bill because it will go a long way in removing those anomalies and fixing those communication gaps.

After this bill is passed the victims will stand to be safer, and that is because—we all remember the embarrassing incident where Phillip John Smith escaped all the way to Brazil. What was more embarrassing was that the law enforcement agencies did not know for the next 48 hours. Corrections came to know only 24 hours after he had escaped that he had actually failed to return to prison. It took them a further 24 hours to inform the police, and then the police acted. The police were not able to inform the victims of Phillip John Smith’s crimes about his escape. That is one situation that will probably be prevented in the future if we actually implement this bill effectively.

There were also concerns about the period of time that biometric information and other information about offenders is held by the law enforcement agencies. I know for a fact that Corrections stores or keeps the biometric information of an offender when the offender comes into its custody, and then, with this bill, Corrections will be able to share that information with the other border agencies such as Customs, Immigration, the New Zealand Police, and, to a certain extent, intelligence agencies.

So, that being the case, our hope is that future communication issues could be prevented. The offenders for whom there is an alert on the system for a ban on foreign travel will be stopped at the border because Customs and Immigration will have information on their system if an offender has been put on that list.

So these are the reasons why we have supported this bill in the past, and these are the reasons why we will continue to support this bill.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I will take a brief call on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. Firstly, can I begin by thanking the Law and Order Committee, which did work very well and very constructively on what is an important part of our law enforcement framework. I think the circumstances that led to this piece of work and the inquiry around the escape of Phillip John Smith are well known. It is a matter that certainly sticks out in my mind. I had been the Minister of Justice for just a few weeks and was immediately presented with this situation. Of course, your first instinct is to identify what has gone wrong in the system to allow it to happen and what needs to be put in place to stop it happening. What became clear very, very quickly was that there are a number of both practice and legislative barriers that stopped agencies working in the way we might expect would be the case.

When we found that, in fact, agencies like Corrections did not feel able to share information with border agencies around who should and who should not leave the country, when we found there was legal uncertainty about the ability to leave the country, and when we found that an offender—a manipulative offender—was able to manipulate our name register systems and our identity verification system to his own ends, it very quickly became clear that we had to look at our frameworks in New Zealand to ensure it did not happen again. That is why, of course, there was an inquiry instituted to look into these issues.

But I think it is worth making the point that this was not just an inquiry looking into a single escape and what needed to have happened to stop that particular set of circumstances. What that situation did was identify a need to look more broadly at how we thought about identity verification across our whole law enforcement and border systems and how information sharing needed to be set up to facilitate those systems working. That is what the inquiry was asked to look at, and it recommended to this House that the systems needed a “step change”, to use its words. It was not a question of some small, incremental tweaks; it was a recognition that our systems, from the Department of Internal Affairs, from Births, Deaths and Marriages, from the Police, through the courts, through Corrections, right through to our border agencies, needed to be comprehensively rethought and redesigned.

It also reflected a very prescient observation, which is that name records are not sufficient in the current environment to properly protect and understand who we are dealing with. I think it is the expectation of New Zealanders that the systems are able to know with a high degree of confidence who they are dealing with, and that that is not able to be defeated by something as simple as a name change or by using different legal names to carry out that behaviour. It should not be sufficient to enable offenders to have several identities that they can operate at their will. And, certainly, it is not sufficient that we can have a breakdown between law enforcement processes and our border agencies. That is what this bill is designed to do.

The inquiry came up with 39 substantive recommendations, and the Government accepted all of them. Twenty-two of those related, in the main, to Corrections operational practice, which have all been fully implemented and are now in place. But as I mentioned earlier, a number of them talked to the step change required between the ways we access things like the births, deaths, and marriages record, like the real-time ability for our law enforcement professionals to have access to identity verification, like the ability to be able to verify an offender at one stage in their life and have a single source of truth about who they are as they flow through the system. This bill will give effect to that. It is an important part of our framework, and I commend it to the House.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Courts Matters Bill

Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

First Readings

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider these bills. The two bills are being introduced as cognate bills because they form an integrated package for the reform of the courts and tribunals system.

Independent, fair, and efficient courts and tribunals are a cornerstone of any healthy democracy. New Zealand has a robust system, which serves us well, but we can and should make the system easier to use and ensure that it keeps pace with people’s expectations. The Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill are the latest in a programme of legislative reform ensuring the legal framework for our justice services enables courts and tribunals to move with the times. This is a process of continuous improvement that is structured around making the system easier for people to understand and to use while upholding the law. Consistent, transparent, and efficient processes in our courts and tribunals that reflect the needs of today are important considerations for people accessing justice services. These two bills will contribute towards the development of a modern, efficient, and effective courts and tribunals system.

These bills will reduce the time it takes to hear and resolve matters, and will improve users’ experience of the courts and tribunals system. They will enable greater use of modern technology to further improve efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness. They will simplify and standardise statutory powers and procedures to improve productivity and efficiency. And they will provide better consumer protection and redress and greater access to justice.

I turn now to the Courts Matters Bill. The bill amends 14 Acts governing court security, criminal procedure, fines enforcement, and other court processes. Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Courts Security Act to extend the powers of court security officers to deny entry, and to remove and detain people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or abusively or commit minor crimes on court premises. Court security officers are currently authorised to detain only people who have committed very serious offences. These increased powers will assist court security officers to provide the safe, secure, and orderly court environment that court users are entitled to.

Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of criminal processes and to address issues that have been identified following the implementation of major criminal procedure reforms in 2013. For example, category 2 offences with a maximum penalty of community work have been reclassified as category 1 offences. This recognises that these defendants do not always need to appear in court; instead, they will be able to plead guilty or not guilty through a written letter to the court.

Part 3 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Summary Proceedings Act to strengthen the credibility of fines as sanctions and to enable more money to be collected sooner. This will include the greater use of modern technology to set up time payment arrangements. Part 3 will also simplify the procedures for placing charges on land and forcibly selling land to pay large fines. This will enable the District Court to impose statutory land charges on land owned by defendants who have overdue fines of $5,000 or more and to sell the land of defendants with overdue fines of $50,000 or more. The new, simpler processes will enable these tools to be used more often.

Part 4 of the Court Matters Bill amends 11 Acts to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of court processes and to improve users’ experiences. For example, the order of the two judicial inquiries under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act will be reversed so that victims and other witnesses will not have to attend and give evidence twice. Part 4 also amends the Juries Act. Court staff will be able to communicate with jurors electronically, meaning jurors will receive information more quickly and by a more convenient method. Part 4 will also authorise court registrars to excuse potential jurors who are not confident in their understanding of the English language. This will provide these people with a simpler and quicker process that does not require the involvement of a judge.

I turn now to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, which I will refer to as the tribunals bill. The tribunals bill will standardise and modernise the powers and procedures of 21 tribunals, to improve their productivity, efficiency, and timeliness. These tribunals include the disputes tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal, which almost 30,000 New Zealanders accessed in the last financial year. Users of these 21 tribunals will benefit from new standard provisions governing the summonsing of witnesses, the awarding of costs where a person has obstructed or unreasonably delayed proceedings, and contempt so that disruptive people can be more easily removed from a hearing.

Financial thresholds and levels that reflect the needs of today are important considerations for people accessing justice services. The tribunals bill will double the monetary limit of the disputes tribunal. It will increase from $15,000 to $30,000. This means that more disputes will be able to be resolved by the tribunal, which is a cheaper and faster alternative to a full court case. The tribunals bill will also provide better consumer protection and redress. For example, the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal will be able to award compensation of up to $100,000 for financial losses arising from a real estate agent’s unsatisfactory conduct. This will also provide a simpler, quicker, and cheaper alternative to a court case. In addition, the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority will be able to discipline unsatisfactory conduct as well as misconduct. This will promote higher standards and increase confidence in the sector.

Users of other tribunals will also benefit from the tribunals bill. For example, the Legal Complaints Review Officer will be given the powers needed to reduce the backlog of cases that has developed. More cases will be able to be dealt with on the papers instead of a hearing having to be held. Meritless complaints will also be able to be struck out at an early stage. This will enable other cases to be resolved sooner. The Government is also taking the opportunity to disestablish the defunct Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner. The commissioner completed his work some 17 years ago—in my electorate, so I am pleased to see that one.

Finally, in conclusion, these two cognate bills will further modernise court processes; standardise the powers and procedures of 21 tribunals to improve their productivity, efficiency, and timeliness; improve users’ experience of the court and tribunal system; and help make people safer in our court and tribunal buildings. I commend these bills to the House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on these, the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. It is very easy, on the presentation of the Minister of Justice’s argument for both of these bills, to say that, yes, anything that makes the administration of justice more effective, more efficacious, is obviously a desirable thing. But I have to say I do take some personal discomfort when I start seeing the language of “greater efficiency” and “greater productivity” applied to the processes of justice, and when I see that the language that is talked about includes “providing consumer protection” as well as greater access to justice. I have no questions or qualms about greater access to justice—but consumer protection? Can we just remind ourselves that most people who go to court—whether it is in the civil jurisdiction or the criminal jurisdiction—and most people who turn up to a tribunal are generally there not because they want to be there but because something has happened to them that they did not want to have happen, or, if they are answering as a defendant or a respondent, they are there against their will but because they have to defend their position or their interests too.

So let us not start regarding processes of justice as somehow akin to going to McDonald’s and whether or not you get fries with that. That is not about a better consumer experience. When it comes to justice, one thing is necessary, and that is that everybody who appears before a judicial body or a body acting judicially or quasi-judicially goes away feeling—if not immediately, then certainly within months—that they have been treated fairly, that their voice has been heard, and that the claim that they have advanced or that they have defended has been heard and treated justly. That is the only thing we ask of our expansive judicial system, whether it is the formal courts or whether it is the more informal tribunals. In the end, what matters most—and the reason we have a justice system—is public confidence in the conduct of our public officials and in the private transactions that we enter into. That is what we have a justice system for, and that is what we must achieve here.

So there are some things in these bills that clearly are worthy of consideration, and that is why we will support these bills in this first reading, so that they will get the close and proper examination by a select committee that they clearly need to have. When I have a look at, in the Courts Matters Bills, anything that would enhance the security of courts—particularly the District Court, which is dealing with a vast array of different cases under different criminal legislation as well as some civil cases—it is important that those who turn out to our courthouses and our courtrooms know that they can do so without the fear of being molested, without the fear of being interfered with, without intimidation, and without violence, which does happen. So if the court security officers need additional powers to ensure that that happens, then we will not stand in the way of that, and we expect that what goes with additional powers to ensure the safety and security of our processes, or the conduct of our court processes, is that those officers will receive the appropriate training so that they can discharge those powers and ensure the safety and security of all those in the courtrooms and the courthouses appropriately.

When I have a look at the changes to the Criminal Procedure Act, again this is where I think the claims of the need for greater efficiency and greater productivity need to be measured against what is happening right now, and users of the court system—the counsel, the judges, the staff, and, obviously, those appearing as defendants or parties to claims—we need to hear from them as well. This is because what is one person’s greater efficiency may well be another person’s injustice, and I have certainly seen plenty of that in my time too.

The Summary Proceedings Act changes allow for the chief executive of the ministry to “approve automated decision-making for imposing attachment orders to collect overdue fines,” and those sorts of things. On the face of it, this sounds like a desirable thing, but as somebody who has himself been the victim of an extraordinarily efficient system, who got issued a parking ticket only a few years ago and the first I knew I about it was when the payroll office of Parliament here told me that I had an attachment order on my parliamentary salary, I have to say that sometimes I think maybe the efficiency goes too far. The Wellington City Council, which issued the ticket, apparently could not track me down when it went unpaid. Although it knew the registration number and the address of the registration number of the car was the address that I was resident at, it still could not track me down. But when it made an application to the court to have an attachment order, it knew exactly where I was. So it did not reflect well on the Wellington City Council, and I took issue, at first, with the court processes, but they followed the rules. I was, of course, naturally happy to pay the fine, although by that time it had been pretty much paid through the attachment order and there was not a lot more that I could do.

So I just say that claims for greater efficiency have to be tested against the real lived experience of people who, you know, might have a parking ticket. Most people—and I am one of them; when I get a parking ticket, I like to dispose of it as quickly as possible. When I say “dispose of it” I do not mean throw the ticket away, but actually pay the fine. That needs to be reflected in the processes and systems that we have in our courts. So if the bill passes unchanged, I will be asking the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice, before he or she goes approving automated decisions for imposing attachment orders, that they also have systems to make sure that people who are at the end of those attachment orders know that they are going to be treated fairly, properly, and of course justly.

Other changes are assisting the assembly of juries to make sure that jurors who are called upon to act in that capacity—a very important part, still, of our criminal justice system and also of our civil system. Of course, as we all know, and I know through recent experience in defamation hearings, it is up to the plaintiff and the defendant to decide whether or not they are heard by a jury, and you do want to make sure that jurors, when they are hearing the evidence, are fully cognisant of it, understand it, and are understanding of the language in which the evidence is given. I think that is appropriate to make sure that jurors are properly equipped so that they can understand the evidence being given. That is a desirable thing to do. Again, for all of these things the test, ultimately, is in not just greater efficiency but the interests of justice—that the interests of the fair treatment of people who are before the courts are going to be properly served.

On that note, I will say that for both pieces of legislation, the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill—both of which are predicated on this need for greater efficiency, greater productivity—we will support both. We will support both of them having that close examination of their content. Of course, that will not happen now until after the general election, and, of course, I fully trust that the House, in whatever form it is in after the election and whoever is on the select committee, whoever is chairing it and whatever members and whatever side of those committee tables they are on, will give due consideration to it.

It is very important that when this House is passing legislation relating to the administration of justice—because we are seen as, you know, the highest court in the land—when we are making rules about the administration of justice, we must make sure that those rules give rise to effective justice, that those rules are the best that they can be, and that this House, in making those rules and considering legislation that sets those rules, acquits itself as if it takes seriously the administration of justice. And ensuring that every citizen who comes before our courts and our tribunals, the most informal of our tribunals—that everybody understands that they will be treated fairly and properly and with the dignity that we would expect of every citizen in this, our great democracy.

As I say, we will support these bills; we will vote in favour of them today. Making sure that our justice system is effective in administering justice is absolutely crucial to public confidence in all our systems, and we want to see that achieved with these pieces of legislation.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to take a short call in support of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. To pick up on the point of the previous speaker, Andrew Little, I speak as the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Of course, Parliament will be dissolved on Thursday, so I will hold that mantle for a little bit of time to come yet. But, yes, we will be dissolving the Parliament, and who knows what will happen after that. But one thing that the Justice and Electoral Committee is united on is, of course, making sure that everybody has access to justice. As part of that, we do need to ensure that our system is modern, that it is efficient, and that it is effective.

The one thing that I need to praise in these amendment bills is the fact that, in the civil arena, the disputes tribunal monetary threshold will rise from $15,000 to $30,000, and, certainly—from my previous life as a solicitor and working for clients—this will be a welcome change. Obviously, as the economy is growing and people enter into commercial transactions, when there is a dispute people look for fast and effective ways to settle disputes, and, of course, the disputes tribunal is a judicial body that is often used to deal with this when a negotiation cannot bring about a satisfactory outcome. So I know that this raising of the threshold from $15,000 to $30,000 will be welcomed in the community. It allows the opportunity for people to take their claims to this tribunal to be heard, and by raising that threshold and giving a larger discretion to the judge, that means that these claims are settled more quickly and efficiently, and that, of course, is a good thing in our justice system.

The other point that I want to talk about that I am impressed with in these bills is, of course, the streamlined processes for lower-level offences punishable by community work—allowing defendants to enter a written plea rather than making that physical appearance in court. Again, this adds to efficiency. The defendant is still getting a fair hearing; they are able to enter their plea in writing and put supporting documentation around that, but, again, it streamlines the processes so that courts are not bogged down by these lower-level offences and can judge on the merits of the case, with respect to that. So that is an important streamlining process that will be investigated in the select committee process, but I think, on the face of it, it is a good one.

Certainly, to pick up on a third—to give the court security staff more powers to deal with unruly people in courts. When you are in a court and there is disruption, of course it is very distracting, but people do need to feel safe when they are presenting their case and when they are coming to be heard, so to give further extension of these powers to court officers to detain or remove people who are abusive or disruptive and creating disorder, that is a good thing—to allow these people who have rightly gone to court to have their day, to be heard, and to feel safe, but also to give extra mana to the court process and to the judiciary. When one goes to the judiciary, it is an important process. It is about justice, it is about democracy, and we need to maintain that level of respect in a courtroom. So I think that that is an important amendment to look at, to give further powers to make courts more secure.

I think that this is a timely introduction of these two bills to, again, fit with our Better Public Services targets to make the justice system more modern and efficient and effective, and I support these bills to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee—we have another piece of legislation that has been referred to our select committee and, as my colleague Andrew Little has highlighted, it is in incredibly relevant and important areas to do with court matters and also tribunal powers and procedures. I just specifically want to talk to those tribunal powers and procedures because in the legislation we have specifically talked about the disputes tribunal and the raising of the threshold from $15,000 to $30,000. We have also looked at the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal and the ability to award monetary compensation up to $100,000, and, specifically, mention has been made of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Licensing Authority.

The other aspect of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill has been about the standardisation of powers and procedures for the other tribunals. I just want to note what those tribunals are. They are disputes tribunals, the Tenancy Tribunal, licences and certificates tribunals, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, immigration tribunals, the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, the Abortion Supervisory Committee, accident compensation bodies, the Copyright Tribunal, Customs Appeal Authority, land valuation tribunals, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, the Legal Aid Tribunal, the Social Security Appeal Authority, the tax authority, Trans-Tasman Occupations Tribunal, the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and the Waitangi Tribunal. I just want to highlight that I did not even know that we had a students tribunal, but that tribunal exists to appeal Ministry of Social Development decisions on student allowances.

The tribunal I specifically want to focus on is the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Human Rights Review Tribunal reviews decisions by the Human Rights Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and also the Health and Disability Commissioner. The reason I specifically want to speak to the Human Rights Review Tribunal is that there was a minute dated 10 March 2017, and that minute, which was written by the chair of that tribunal, Rodger Haines, highlighted these particular issues—it highlighted that the workload of the tribunal has increased from 38 cases in 2014 to 81 cases in 2015 to 93 cases in 2016. The relevance of that increased workload is that, because of the jurisdiction of his role, he is actually empowered under Part 4 of the Human Rights Act—section 104(4). He is the only one who can sit on any case and determine any interim orders.

Because of the legislation, there seems to be an issue, and so in that minute, Rodger Haines highlighted that the Act allows the appointment of a deputy chair only when he is unavailable. So, in fact, what we have seen, for example—and I will use a case that I had in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I took a case in July 2013. We had a hearing in July 2014, and, in fact, the written judgment came out only in May 2017. So it took 2 years and 10 months for a decision to come out of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

The reality of the situation is that there must be an amendment to section 102(1) of the Human Rights Act, and, in fact, in the minute, Rodger Haines has suggested what that amendment should be. Section 102(1) should read, “… the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, may appoint a deputy chair or chairs of the Tribunal …”. What that would do is actually enable the tribunal to manage its workload. I also think it would enable the Minister and the tribunal to appoint specific tribunal chairs under the areas of human rights, privacy, and health and disability.

I bring this to the House because I do not think that those changes can be accommodated in this piece of legislation, and so I am highlighting that, whilst we support these two pieces of legislation to select committee, already I have identified another tribunal that needs another specific amendment. So what I am hoping is that through this process and through the ability of representatives of those other tribunals that I have read out, they will be able to come to the select committee and make specific recommendations about further amendments that would actually enhance the ability of the tribunals and the courts to do their job, because that seems to be the emphasis of this piece of legislation—to make our courts and to make our tribunals more accessible for the public and to actually expedite decisions.

In fact, what has happened in my particular case is that I have appealed the decision, because after 2 years and 10 months there are some issues in terms of accuracy of the judgment that was passed down. I am having to go to the High Court to challenge that decision, and so it seems to be an inefficiency in the system that I have had to do that. I do believe that just as the High Court has some very specific goals around how long it should take for judgments to be issued—90 percent of High Court cases within 3 months—I think it is also valuable for us to look at other amendments at this early stage that could possibly be made to this piece of legislation.

So I will leave my contribution there, but I also hope that I will be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, or whatever it may be called in the future, because it is a committee that I think has been incredibly collegial. We have worked in a really constructive manner to make sure that the pieces of legislation that go through our select committee actually take on board recommendations through the select committee process, because we want the best legislation in order to enhance the functioning of our courts, our tribunals, and, ultimately, our justice system. Kia ora.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I too stand in support of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill in their first readings here today. It is quite a nostalgic day as we recognise that the Justice and Electoral Committee, under the guidance of its chair, Sarah Dowie, and the Law and Order Committee, under the stewardship of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, will no longer exist when this bill is referred in the new Parliament. Presumably, the select committee will be then called the “Super Justice Committee”, or just the Justice and Electoral Committee.

This legislation is very much in line with the Government’s direction in its tidying-up of old legislation, bringing the language into modern language, and streamlining some of the processes, taking into account the modern world that we do live in today. We are going to be streamlining some of the powers and procedures that the tribunals and the courts undertake—especially in the tribunals. We have heard from Louisa Wall, the previous speaker, that there are 21 tribunals administered by the Ministry of Justice. They all have a common set of powers and procedures to operate under, and this certainly will create some administrative efficiencies.

We have also heard today about the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal and its ability to now take even stronger action to award compensation of up to $100,000 for financial losses. That will be significant for that sector. Also, the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority will be able to discipline its licensees and its certificate holders if they are found to be in breach of their conduct—in conduct unbecoming for that trade, such as bullying or other forms of misconduct.

The legislation also sets out to disestablish one defunct tribunal. As the Minister for Courts, Amy Adams, pointed out earlier today, the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner is in her district. I note that Birdlings Flat is close to the shores of Lake Ellesmere, and it was named after the Birdling family, who were the first European settlers to farm the area there. Of significance to me is that it is also the place that I caught my very first fish. I am very famous for my fishing, down there at Birdlings Flat. This legislation also disestablishes other tribunals: the boards of appeal under the Health Act of 1956, and the Maritime Appeal Authority under the Maritime Transport Act of 1994.

This Government is not afraid of creating efficiencies and transparency within any of the organisations that we take responsibility for, and especially not in our courts and tribunals. So we are quite happy that these changes will better reflect the needs of today by creating some timely and specialist dispute resolution outside the court system.

The legislation also aims to improve the tribunals’ scope to hear cases, and, again, that will make them more accessible for dispute resolution. It will also provide better consumer protection and redress for people, because these tribunals are simply quicker and cheaper alternatives to going off to a very time-consuming and expensive court case.

The amendments to fine enforcement also improve customer services in the courts and productivity, and they also give credibility to the fines regime. I know there are quite a few stories that we hear about people who have had a fine imposed on them, but sometimes it is quite difficult for the courts to recover those fines, so this sets out to make that more efficient.

This Government has also implemented other reforms to our justice system recently. This makes it easier for people to understand, to participate in, and to use it; it provides the flexibility and responsiveness that we would expect from our judicial system; and, of course, it is transparent. These bills I have great pleasure in supporting, and I commend them to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a call on these cognate bills, the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. I think we share a common position with the Labour Party. We will be supporting these bills to select committee, but at the select committee we will be wanting to have a few matters resolved. There is some good content in these bills—they do some useful and positive things—but there are also some issues that we do take with some of the new provisions in the bills and, indeed, there are some matters we think could usefully be included in the bills. Given that they are omnibus bills, there is an opportunity there to perhaps insert some further provisions into them.

I think it is timely to be looking at the processes of the courts. We could regret, I think, that this legislation is somewhat incremental. It does make changes, but given that if you talk to judges—perhaps off the record—and certainly lawyers and people engaged in the courts on a day-to-day basis such as court staff, I think they would uniformly assure you that the operation of the courts could be a great deal better than it is. There are road blocks. There are issues of timeliness and of accuracy. There are a great many matters around our courts. There are serious issues about the broader matter of access to justice. There are too many people who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to access our courts, and thereby to access justice. Some of those are funding issues and some of them are legislative or regulatory, but I think we could really do well with an overall, almost clean slate approach to the operations of our courts.

I share, again, Mr Little’s comments about some of his concerns about the language around efficiency. Certainly we do need to improve the efficiency of the courts, and I am reminded a year or two ago there was a programme in place called the eBench, which I understand was endeavouring to eliminate a great deal of the paperwork to enable a lot more day-to-day transmission of documents and the like electronically. That project failed, I understand. Whether through hiccups in the software or for whatever reason, it did not progress, but I do think that would be, certainly, something that any Government ought to be addressing. I recall that the Justice and Electoral Committee, I think, or the Law and Order Committee was taken into the nether regions of the Wellington District Court and shown just few months’ worth of paperwork, and it was a very large room stacked to the ceiling with paper. I think we do have to consider, in the broader scheme of efficiency in the courts, that to the extent that we can get an electronic exchange of documents and the like, providing they are secure and able to be validated and so on, I think it would be a very useful step forward.

In terms talking about efficiency, however, we have to be a little bit humble, collectively, in remembering that some of the previous reforms of the courts that were intended to increase efficiency have actually achieved the exact opposite. I am thinking of the centralisation of records, particularly in some of the larger Auckland courts, in Auckland, in Manukau, and in Waitakere, where the centralisation of records and information has led to a really significant reversal, in fact, in terms of efficiency. I constantly hear from lawyers that having centralised documents in one or two places means that lawyers and court staff often no longer have the personal relationships that have actually facilitated the flow of the business of the courts in the past. It is unfortunate that that centralisation programme, despite on paper being wonderfully apparent to drive efficiency, actually has not done that, and so as these bills work their way through the committees I think it is important that the recent experience of attempts to make courts more efficient should be fairly close to top of mind.

One of these bills is focusing on tribunals, and that is a good thing. Tribunals are often the unsung heroes of our justice system. People, ordinary New Zealanders, are more likely to engage with a tribunal, I believe, than they are with a District Court or a High Court or any other court. And so to the extent that this does look at matters affecting tribunals, I think that is a very positive thing and a useful development. I think the idea of increasing the monetary threshold for the disputes tribunal from at most $20,000 up to $30,000 is sensible. In the passage of time, $30,000 is not worth as much as it was 5 or 10 years ago, obviously. Inflation alone would suggest that a higher threshold would be appropriate, and I think that is a useful step.

I think there would be general support for imposing a little bit more of a monetary penalty on real estate agents who run amok. There have been too many instances where agents have not performed professionally, and that can come at extraordinary cost to people who are seeking to buy homes or people who have sold homes and discover that in fact they have been cheated when those homes get sold on, often in a matter of hours, to significant advantage to the agent rather than to the vendor. So I think that will win some support. Similarly, being able to get some more structure around the private security personnel and private investigators—I can say, having for my sins been a private security person for some 3 years or so as a part-time occupation as a student, that that sector was not in a particularly happy state. I do think that as it has become increasingly professional, and as training requirements have come up, the additional disciplinary authority given to the oversight body will be a useful and positive thing.

I would have to say the Greens are slightly less happy about the increased powers that are intended to be given to court security officers (CSOs). The power to detain, effectively the power to arrest, for a range of matters and actions—these are powers that we associate with police more readily. Our police force is highly trained, very professional, and 99.9 percent of the time it gets it right. While it is very simple to give more power to court security officers, we would like to be reassured through the course of these proceedings, as the bills go through, that in parallel with giving these individuals more powers they will also be given more training and more capability. I think of simple things like being able to detain a person for carrying drugs or associated paraphernalia. It is a pretty straightforward comment, but what actually constitutes “associated paraphernalia”? I suspect a police officer could give you a pretty comprehensive description, but I am equally sure that most court security officers could not.

Similarly, I get a little bit concerned about the language that a person can be detained, potentially, if they refuse to obey a direction from a CSO to do or not to do anything “that is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and security” of people around the court precinct. That language of “reasonably necessary” implies a fairly high level of judgment, a good understanding of the law, a good understanding of what is appropriate behaviour, and a good understanding of what is just posing or grandstanding and what actually does genuinely represent a threat. I guess the key point for me would be to say that as we give these officers more powers, we need to be very, very sure that they will also have the capacity and the training to be able to meet those powers.

Equally, we have some concerns—and these may well be resolved; I mean, these are matters for debate at the committee, rather than hard and fast positions—about the giving of more authority to registrars and judicial officers to do things like issue arrest warrants. These, again, are powers that are more commonly associated with judges. I do think that as we allow people more power, more responsibility, and more authority, we need to be convinced that the training, that the accountability, and that the associated responsibility placed on them to get it right will be applied and implemented alongside these bills as they are enacted.

So having in those few words indicated that the Greens will support this legislation, we will be looking for some changes and some clarity around some of the provisions at the select committee, but on balance they do seem to do some useful things, and we can support them at least that far. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support these two cognate bills to the select committee for further scrutiny. In fact, we think that they are very good bills that have been a long time coming. They are part of a programme, as the Minister of Justice said in her speech, of legislation to improve the operation of the courts generally, and we have seen some pretty substantial legislation along those lines come forward during this term. They are non-political in nature. They are work that has been done over many, many years, and I think that whoever was in Government would be bringing these bills forward to improve the justice system.

These two are both very substantial bills when you look at them. There is quite a lot of detail in them, and they will certainly need scrutiny at the select committee stage. They will also need good public consultation, because the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill in particular covers things that members of the public have a great deal of interest in, and they have a great deal of interest in them because members of the public themselves take a direct part in the justice system through the tribunals network—and there certainly are plenty of tribunals. So I am sure that we will get a lot of submissions, and we will need to look at those very closely.

Turning first to the Courts Matters Bill, this is possibly the most important of the two, although they are both very important. We in New Zealand First totally agree with the objective of the bill, which is to ensure that the court system is independent, fair, and efficient. I would add “accessible” to that list, because that is probably the most important of all the principles upon which this sort of legislation needs to be based. When the objectives include “to reduce the time” we also have to bear in mind that that is not an objective by itself, and that we must also provide a full, proper, and fair process to all of the participants of the system. So reducing time has to be balanced by that.

I do think, though, as is stated in one of the objectives, that the greater use of modern technology will be welcomed by everybody. There is not much point in having modern technology if it is not going to be used, and the courts seem to lag behind in terms of the application of those technologies. So it is good to see that it is being sped up. I do think it is just as important, though, that forms and templates need to be simpler. They need to be in plain English, so that not only lawyers but also participants in processes can take a proper part. I will have a bit more to say about access to justice when I come to the tribunals bill if I get time to get that far.

I would like to make some comments about Part 1, which includes amendments to the court security system. I agree in part with what David Clendon said about that. We in New Zealand First do support the expanded powers for the court security officers, because there are many cases of unruly behaviour in the courts and it is important for security reasons that those officers have those powers, but they do need to be applied with some discretion so that we do not get infringements of people’s right to observe what is going on and support other people. That is often a fine line to tread, but I hope that court security officers, having been given these powers, will be trained in how to use them so that those rights are not infringed. But, overall, where New Zealand First does support those powers, we think it is actually necessary. Those powers include the right to remove or detain people who are intimidating, abusive, or otherwise causing disruption. It is only for those reasons, and it is important, as I say, that the officers need to be trained to make sure that they do not go too far.

Also included is the authority for these officers to detain people whom they believe have committed or attempted to commit a wider range of offences. These include things like carrying illegal drugs and its associated paraphernalia, attempting to commit an offence that would threaten the safety or security of people in the courts, refusing to give their name, refusing to leave the court when asked to do so because of their behaviour, and generally refusing to obey a direction. We think that those are necessary and desirable additional powers, and we will support them.

Concerning Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill, those are the provisions that refer to the Criminal Procedure Act. There are some good improvements there that will, for example, improve the ability to put offences in categories that are more appropriate. There is the provision relating to category 1 and category 2 offences where, for example, defendants in category 2 cases are required to appear in court. Those are the sorts of simple things that do make the courts work better.

I can see the time ticking on. There are some other things I had wanted to say about the Courts Matters Bill but I prefer to go on now to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. The first thing I want to say is that the one thing that this bill does not address, and the one thing that the Government has not addressed in this term of Parliament, is the legal aid eligibility thresholds. Those have not been changed for some time. The thresholds are too tough. Many people fall outside them, and so people with very few means are not able to get legal aid. That needs urgent attention, and this Government has not done it. That is the most important way that we can improve access to justice.

It applies in the disputes tribunal, and currently what it says is this: for a single applicant with no dependent children the threshold for income is only $23,326 per year. For a single applicant with one dependent child, or an applicant with a spouse or partner and no dependent children, it is only $36,940 a year. For a single applicant with two dependent children, or an applicant with a spouse or partner and one dependent child, it is still only $53,119 per year. I think most people would agree that those thresholds are too tough and that too many people would fall outside them. I know from people who come into my office, and from many other sources, that this is a real problem. This is something this Government should have addressed by this time, and could have done so as part of the consideration of this bill.

However, there are many other things in the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill that we do think are worthwhile. They include such things as creating an offence of contempt of a tribunal, with substantial penalty. Now, many years ago—in fact, decades ago—I was a disputes tribunal referee. I know that this is really a problem. It can be a real problem when you have a couple of parties there in front of you, they are emotionally charged, and all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. So to have those powers would be important.

Similarly, there is the offence of failing to comply with a summons—a new offence there. Issuing practice notes for people who are involved in operating the tribunals systems would also be a useful addition. And one that I think is very important is the liability to publish decisions. People may assume that that has always been done; in fact, it has not, especially in tribunals. That is actually another aspect of access to justice, because when decisions are readily available, it actually assists a lot of people in a lot of different circumstances. So I am glad to see that is there. Also, there is the greater use of electronic hearings, especially by telephone. That is already possible in disputes tribunals. It needs to be across the board for other tribunals as well. The additional powers concerning summoning of witnesses, allowing the awarding of costs, and other measures to deal with contempt are also all welcome additions to the tribunals system.

New Zealand First does welcome these two bills. We think that there are going to need to be some changes, and, as I have said, there are certainly some things that I would wish to pursue.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take a short call on this, the Courts Matters Bill. The goal of this bill is to increase the efficiency of courts and tribunals, and it does this in several ways. Firstly, it looks to decrease the time to hear and resolve matters, it improves the user’s experience, it seeks to use technology, and it increases consumer protections and redress.

I would like to elaborate on what some of these things mean operationally. This is an omnibus bill, so the Courts Security Act 1999 is one of the Acts that is changed by amendments. What interests me is how we improve the user’s experience in court. This is done primarily by increasing the mandate of the court security officers. The bill does this by redefining what specified offences might mean initially. Clause 5, which amends section 2 of the Courts Security Act, talks to this and describes an offence under the Crimes Act, the Summary Offences Act, the Arms Act, and section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Of course, that is what brings in the paraphernalia and drugs that may come into a courtroom.

New section 15(A) wisely talks about the removal of alcohol from a courtroom. New section 18(A) talks about court security officers and their ability to refuse entry or remove people if an officer believes on reasonable grounds—and I take my colleague’s point that this will need to be discussed further in the select committee—that the person is harassing or intimidating, or is at serious risk of committing violence or damage to property. For all of those reasons they can be refused entry or removed. The next level of intervention, if you like, is to actually detain people. New section 19(A) talks about how people may be detained. They are able to be detained if they refuse to leave court premises as directed, refuse to obey an instruction from a court security officer, commit an offence on court premises, and refuse to give their full name, address, and date of birth at the request of a court security officer.

The last part I want to talk to is new section 20A, in clause 14, which, interestingly enough, is the power to pursue a person. So for people who are detained and flee, “a court security officer may, and, if the court orders, must, pursue that person while he or she is within a short distance of the court security officer,”. I am sure that will be discussed thoroughly in the select committee as well—what “pursue” means, what “a short distance” means. I think these will be interesting discussions. This is an important bill, an omnibus bill, and it is my pleasure to commend it to the select committee. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. We will be supporting these to select committee, and, as my colleague David Clendon has already outlined, we welcome some parts of the legislation, but we have some concerns. Firstly, we see merit in what the legislation is proposing to do in terms of standardising processes; making it clearer and simpler for users to access justice; making sure that the systems are modernised when it comes to filing, storage, and communication; and making sure that the courts are operating in a more efficient way. So, absolutely, we welcome making sure that we can offer a good, robust system in our courts process.

I think, though, at this stage, that it is worth mentioning that the courts are facing a backlog of work, and we know that there was gutting to the funding for the courts. So I think we also need to consider a systemic response while this legislation is trying to catch up on some of that. I think we need to understand why there was a backlog in the first place. I did want to mention that. We look forward to the select committee submissions on both what the Greens think this legislation offers in terms of its merit, but also on our concerns.

The courts matters and tribunals bills have a range of amendments with the intent of improving the efficiency of the courts and tribunals systems, which I have just referred to. But we are particularly concerned—and this is what I wanted to spend most of my time on—about the Courts Matters Bill, which will give court officers the power to issue an arrest warrant when they think it is necessary to compel the attendance of a defendant. The fact is that this bill significantly extends the powers of court security officers to detain people.

The Green Party is always concerned about extending powers of detention and arrest in particular. At this stage it is police officers who have those powers. We will want to remain concerned about extending those powers to court officers. I particularly wanted to highlight that a concern that we should have is that this is another opportunity to consider the cumulative impact of a justice system that is not free from bias and discrimination—something that is evidenced and researched and known very well and very clearly.

What, then, will extending the powers of court officers to detain and arrest—what does that mean for the situation where, already, Māori and Pacific people are overrepresented in our justice system by virtue of having a justice system that is not fair and is not free from bias? What will that cumulative impact mean if we are going to extend the very powers that have not been used fairly across all of the communities and groups in our country? We are going to want to have a good look at that at the select committee stage.

I am quite keen, also, on understanding the training that is going to be required to ensure that we do not transfer over the very discrimination that is used currently in arresting and detention when it comes to Māori in the community, and that we do not transfer that very discriminatory practice, which we still have not sorted out even for police.

So that was the main core of my contribution at this first reading. We will be wanting to go over that quite deeply at the select committee stage. As I said at the beginning, we do welcome the parts of the bill that will have merit in terms of upgrading and modernising our system. But, again, we also need to address the cause of the backlog that the courts are facing in the very first place, and we will remain concerned about the extension of powers of detention and arrest. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): One of the pieces of legislation that has changed in the Courts Matters Bill has to do with court security. It is fair to say that there is a need for more security than there was when I was a young lawyer. I think the most amusing security incident I can recall was when I was working in Dunedin. These lawless people in the South had a problem, with one of the accused appearing in the Southland court throwing a swede at the judge—ha, ha!

These changes are necessary. They actually do not cure the underlying problem that we have got in our civil courts, which worries me, and that is that I have always thought that access to justice is largely a function of cost, and when the cost of civil processes becomes so high that unless you are legally aided or wealthy you cannot afford to access the system, then the civil courts are failing to meet their social purpose.

I think we are at that point in New Zealand where our civil courts are not meeting their social purpose. The disputes tribunal is not the answer; its jurisdiction is about: “Right, we actually have to do something to improve the efficiency of the civil courts.” I think there is a real need to take some of these rules from the exclusive control of lawyers and impose some practical methods of bringing civil processes to trial early so that people can get the determination of a judge, which they will generally accept, and if they do not they can always appeal.

With that, I am aware that we have got to get on to valedictory speeches. We also support the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, and the Labour Party will be voting in the bills favour.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I am just going to take a short call on this legislation. While we are on the subject of justice and electoral matters, I just wanted to make a special mention of Maniapoto, who have been in the House today and signed an agreement in principle. Thanks to all of those involved. I could not think of any better justice for those people in the King Country.

This legislation really is legislation that is looking at simplifying and standardising the powers and procedures for the tribunals. It is for our 21 tribunals, and I think it is commendable. I have not been on the committee, but it is important that we simplify the justice system so that people can understand it as they go through. I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to make his valedictory statement.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): O le a ou le toe faloina le afaloloa pe lalafo foe ole savili, aua o lea ua taoto le aupeau, I le e’e papaaao ole paia ma le mamalu ua ali’itia ai le maota nei, ma oute fa’atulou atu I lau afioga I le fofoga fetalai, le mamalu ole saofaiga a le Palemene, ma lau tapuaiga Aotearoa. Tulou, tulou, tulouga lava.

Fakaalofa lahi atu kia mutolu oti Tau magafaoa, Moe tau kapisiga Kua tolotolo mai he aho nei Kehe higoa he iki Ko iesu keriso.

Tihe-i mauri ora! Ka tū ake ahau i runga i te aroha, heoi anō, he mihi poroporoaki ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai, tēnā koutou!

[Behold the breath of life! I rise with a feeling of compassion and, furthermore, to make a farewell tribute to you who have arrived here. Salutations to you collectively.]

It is an honour to address this House for the last time, as the MP for Maungakiekie and as a proud National Party member. While I have been a public servant for the last 10 years, my first taste of the National Party was in the mid-1990s. I remember being invited along to a meeting by a colleague at Russell McVeagh. I turned up to a regional policy committee meeting and in the time-honoured tradition of political parties, I was co-opted on to a committee. Unlike Ms King opposite I avoided being made the secretary, and I was instead assigned as the events organiser. I was dispatched to organise a guest speaker for the next month, and I thought: “That’s easy.” I would invite my university professor of economics and supervisor of my dissertation—none other than Professor Tim Hazledine. I could not make the presentation, but I was notified that the meeting was a mild success with some robust questioning of the learned professor.

I then thought that if they enjoyed Tim Hazledine, I could invite another professor from university who supervised my other dissertation, so I notified the committee that Jane Kelsey was next month’s speaker. Well, the reply from HQ was swift and it was abrupt: there are no delegates available for that meeting and the boardroom is fully booked out next month, anyway. Suffice to say, I was not asked to organise a National Party policy meeting again. But lesson No. 1 in politics: watch the company that you keep.

I left for overseas and I returned to help campaign for my old schoolfriend and current colleague, Mr Paul Goldsmith. Paul ran in Maungakiekie in 2005. It was to be a dress rehearsal for 2008, and I learnt a lot from doorknocking with Mr Goldsmith and, of course, I learnt a lot about canvassing for the party vote. He also learnt a lot from me. I remember telling him on election day that I was scrutineering at a booth in Ōranga, and he asked me: “Where is Ōranga?”. I told him that it was in our electorate, and he mumbled in his Goldie-like way that maybe he had overlooked it on the map. Twelve years on, I am assured by David Seymour that Paul is as scrupulous with that Epsom map as he was with the map in Maungakiekie.

Of course, 2008 was the year of change in New Zealand. A dynamic John Key swept to power on a platform of lower taxes, better front-line services, fiscal discipline, and setting national standards in education. I was grateful to be swept along during that wave of aspirational leadership and positive change, behind a group of committed volunteers and supporters to win Maungakiekie, a traditional Labour seat. I remember well that night at Skycity, and I said to my mum: “Happy birthday, Mum. You’ve got a thousand people at your party and it didn’t cost me a cent.” Mum, I know you cannot be here today; you are watching in Auckland. Get well soon. I love you.

At this point, can I acknowledge the contribution of the many thousands of National Party volunteers who got me here. I want to acknowledge the presidents, Goodfellow and Kirk, and regional chairs, Alastair Bell, Scott Simpson, Alan Towers, and Andrew Hunt. I want to acknowledge Roger Bridge, Peter Kiely—I could go on. You know who you are. Thank you very much for your support of me and the party. Of course, I have also got to acknowledge my electorate chairs Cheryl and Seamus, and also my really good friends Dr Lee Mathias, Graham Malaghan, Mark Nicholson, Mark Thomas, and the hundreds locally who supported me and my campaign.

On 11 November, after the election, I travelled to my first caucus. I remember congregating with other new MPs at the Koru lounge. It was my first time in the Koru lounge. A couple of Pacific women who voted for me came up to congratulate me on my victory. They said: “Well done on your hard work. You’ve made Pacific people proud and you’re going to make a fine MP.” But I quickly learnt as a new MP to try not to let this get to my head. They gave me their business cards and said to call if I needed their help, even for campaigning. Well, I was feeling pretty chuffed, and as I walked away they wished me well and said: “God bless you, Su’a William Sio.” True story—true story.

But at that first caucus meeting the advice for new MPs was to work the electorate; you will be measured on those first 3 years—and so will you, son—and especially that first year. And, as you do, I set about attending every school fair, prize-giving, Rotary club dinner, and sports club function on offer. It also allowed me to listen to queries, hear opinions, and receive feedback. I enjoyed the work and I reminded myself that this was what public service was about: dealing with the issues of people in need.

In my maiden speech I spoke of the nature of public service and of servant leadership. My mantra in public service, as many of my staff will attest to, is that I wake up each day asking what I can do and what our team can do to improve the lives of New Zealanders and their well-being, and also how to better serve their needs. I believe that if you help one New Zealander, you have had a successful day; if you help thousands, you have had a stellar day and you can retire. I knew that if I could do that with vigour and compassion that I would be re-elected with an increased majority. Serving in Maungakiekie required a lot of patience, active listening, care, and compassion. I would see some of the pain and suffering and abuse that are sadly a part of our society.

I remember doing human hoardings at Panmure roundabout one morning just before the 2011 election. An elderly woman approached me. She said to come and visit a family who were living in her garage. I visited them that afternoon where I met a teenage mother who was living in a garage with her 1-year-old son. She was heavily pregnant and her son, who had a heart condition, was running around half-clothed on the concrete floor. As I went home to my family that night to celebrate my birthday, that sad family image was burnt into my consciousness and I was determined to do something about it. My staff and I worked with Housing New Zealand and other agencies to ensure that her needs were met. Thankfully, by election day I had increased my majority in my seat and, more importantly, this mum and her two kids had found a new two-bedroom apartment to call home.

I joined the National Party because I believe in the power of families and communities to care for our own, unencumbered by the Government. However, I believe, like many New Zealanders, that when absolutely required, the Government can and should provide assistance and help. I want to thank my electorate staff at this point—most of you are here: Jenny, Josh, Ali, Pua, and Darrell—and there are literally hundreds more stories where we have improved the lives of the many that we have served through that office. Fa‘afetai tele lava.

Looking back over the last 10 years, I was proud to launch the new blue recycling bin service. This initiative was done by our local council when I first got into council and it reduced the waste to landfill by about 20 percent—not bad, I thought, for a few months’ work in the council. I had become a blue-green by accident, but I was proud of what we had done on the council. Then, on the council, I advocated for the restoration of the Onehunga foreshore. This was an example of how, with the cooperation of the Onehunga Business Association and The Onehunga Enhancement Society, both Auckland Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency provided the first significant access to the foreshore since the 1970s. That 7 hectare park now provides beaches, picnic areas, and open spaces for families, and, crucially, it will provide them for generations of New Zealanders to enjoy. After first advancing this project as a councillor, I was finally honoured to help cut the ribbon in 2015 as a Minister of the Crown.

Last year also saw the replanting of trees back on to Maungakiekie, or One Tree Hill. It was an issue that meant a lot to many in my local community and one that I had championed and worked through with our Treaty negotiations Minister—and I salute you, sir. Through those settlements with local iwi and hapū and via the support of Auckland Council we were able to do that. The ceremony was witnessed by hundreds, and I had the honour to plant one of the tōtara trees, which I hope and pray will survive the rigours of the weather to once again stand tall on my maunga, Maungakiekie. Sometimes such public symbols divide, but I believe that these trees will unite my community, our city, and this nation.

Finally, in our local area we have seen the rise of the Tāmaki Regeneration Company. This is the first large-scale transformation project in New Zealand and it will deliver over 7,500 quality homes. But for me it is more than that. Its vision means partnerships with mana whenua, local residents, businesses, and service providers. I tell you these achievements not only because I was involved in a small way but because they involved local people, their views, opinions, and, most importantly, it involved their aspirations.

On 17 January 2014 I received a call that all MPs long to receive, and covet. I got a call from Prime Minister Key that I would be a Minister in his executive. I remember taking it while spending precious time with my daughter, Hope, at Potters Park. Getting an unexpected call from the Prime Minister like that is either one of two things: there is trouble on the horizon and you may be forced to resign or you have done well enough to get promoted. Thankfully, it was the latter.

However, trying to have a conversation with the Prime Minister while doing water play during a gale in a park full of kids was really hard, but having to explain to a 3-year-old why you were interrupting her daddy-daughter date was even more challenging. I want to thank Sir Toalesavili John Key for the opportunity. It was a huge honour to serve with him and other Ministers in this National-led Government.

Taking on the Pacific peoples portfolio and becoming Associate Minister of Local Government were a natural fit. I am particularly proud of the work that was completed by the ministry in implementing the Pacific Employment Support Services scheme. It is a scheme that focuses on motivating, training, and matching young Pacific people to jobs. It had an 83 percent success rate in terms of placement into jobs or further training. That is simply stunning for any job or training scheme.

Later that year I got another call. This time I was on a beach, following the 2014 election. I got the call from Sir John, who told me that I was being elevated to Cabinet. Hope and Jules started dancing in the background, and then Jules asked me: “What portfolios?”. I said “Corrections.”, and she said “Jeepers! What did you do wrong?”.

Some would see Corrections as a poisoned chalice. I believe it was a true honour. To the 10,000 men and women who serve in Corrections, some risking their lives every day—I salute you. It was a privilege to be your Minister, despite the challenges—and there were many—in that portfolio. I was proud of what we achieved. I recall visiting Rimutaka Prison one day. I sat there with six prisoners. They were about to be released, and I asked them—I said: “Look, what one thing would make a difference in your lives?”. One fellow said: “Actually, two things.” I said: “Two—OK.” He said: “Two things—a pack of cigarettes and a chocolate ice cream.” “But seriously”, I said. To a man, they said: “What we really want are jobs—we want jobs.” That was the key to getting out and staying out. That is why it was important to set up four more working prisons, host an employers summit alongside the Prime Minister, and double the number of educational learning places in prisons, while launching a secure online learning service.

I was also honoured to be the Minister for Ethnic Communities. I spoke in my maiden speech about the ethnic diversity of Maungakiekie and of New Zealand. This role allowed me to engage with the many faces of New Zealand’s ethnic communities, often through celebrations of culture, language, faith, and heritage. As a migrant to Aotearoa myself, I empathised with their plights and understood many of their issues and their ambitions.

Finally, in my health portfolio I was pleased I was able to pass the standardised packaging legislation. Of course, this was initiated by Dame Tariana Turia. Smoking kills, and it prematurely kills up to 4,500 to 5,000 New Zealanders a year. Standardised packaging is proven to reduce smoking rates, and I am glad that this Parliament supported that bill.

Of course, a ministerial office is a difficult place, where people are expected to serve under the most extreme of conditions. My staff did that, and more. I want to thank my staff for their contributions—and some of them are here today—especially Mark, Margaret, Gay, Lucy, Jess, Gail, Moa, Salote, and Colleen. I also want to acknowledge Caron, Alisi, and Luaipou.

I want to wind up this speech by giving thanks to the people of Maungakiekie for putting your trust in me to serve for the past 10 years. I believe I have left it in a better place, but you will be the judge of that. I know a lot of that progress is due to your resilience, your determination, and your spirit. I know that Peter, Amanda, and Sheryn are in the crowd today—thank you. I also leave knowing you are in capable hands with Denise Lee. She is one of us, a local—compassionate, hard-working, with a heart for people and public service.

From Parliament and all the people who make this institution a paragon of democracy to the over 700 people who serve this nation alongside us, the MPs, who often serve with very little kudos—thanks to the security staff, IT, Parliamentary Service, all the support staff, and, yes, even my favourite people, the press gallery.

To my parliamentary colleagues, this is said to be a caustic and a harsh place, but I have made many friendships across this Chamber. I will not name and shame you today, because I know some of you are seeking re-election. But I do want to wish you and your families well. To my caucus colleagues, you are a team of talented and gifted people whom I am proud to have served alongside.

We have had three terms because we have been focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders—jobs, affordable and accessible healthcare, quality educational services, and safer communities. We have been successful because we have been united in our resolve to serve New Zealanders of all hues. To gain a fourth term, you need to maintain that trust and confidence that comes with engaging with people for every hour of every day until 23 September.

May I acknowledge our leader, “the Rock”, our Prime Minister Leuluaialii Bill English, or Simon William English—you are someone I admire and one of my role models in this place, and I want to acknowledge you. You are a rock, and you are more stable and dependable than a rock star, I can say. My distant cousin, the original Rock, Dwayne Johnson—[Interruption] That is right. The Rock had a saying. He said: “Can you smell what The Rock is cooking?”. On 23 September I hope “the rock” is not cooking that pizza, but that you are cooking up a fourth term for the National Party.

May I thank a few mentors—Michael Bassett, John Sax, Tino Pereira, Sir John Graham, and Tim Edney. These people offered me sage advice, as well as caring about me as a person. A special thanks to my Church family at Royal Oak Baptist Church. I know some of you are here today. To Edith, Indrani, Erik, and Karen—your prayers are always felt. To my men’s group—Nick, Rob, Steve, and Ben—your support has been immense.

To old friends, Leilua Winston, Lilomaiava Yvonne, Jo, and Ngawati, Malia, and Sailauama—you have all believed in me from the beginning, and you are even more supportive of me at the end.

Finally, to family—my siblings Lolita, Brigitta, Ken, and Julie—thanks so much for supporting and tolerating me these past 10 years. Thanks to my parents for your sacrifice, your dedication, and your love. We miss you today, Dad, and I know you are watching with Samaria up there. To my Uncle Aiga—after Dad left you stepped up as my go-to guy. Thanks, Uncle.

To the Iiga, Sio, Mailo, Kasupene, and Stevenson families, thank you. To Mum Stevo—she is up there somewhere—well, you are the gold standard for mothers-in-law, I can tell you; fakaue lahi for all your love and support. To Luka, my son—ah, my son—you arrived last year. He has got only two speeds, as you have heard. It is either full speed or asleep, and he is due for a sleep. Hope, the apple of my eye and the passionfruit of my heart. I will never forget—I told you last December that I was leaving Parliament. It was priceless. You said: “Gee, thanks, Daddy. It’s about time.” You have taught me that public service starts at home. I love you, Tiges.

To Jules, my eternal love: well, we started this journey together, as you know. I proposed to you at the end of my first Auckland Marathon, and I said I was ready to run the marathon of life with you. Well, today I propose that I am ready to do an Ironman. What does that mean? Well, I suggest one thing. I suggest that we pursue one of your dreams and make it one of ours. I love you, bubs.

Finally, I want to thank God. Yes, it is unfashionable to talk about faith in the public square, but every day I thank God for life, family, friends, and the privilege to serve here and live in this wonderful country that is Aotearoa New Zealand. I thank Jesus for his sacrifice and the Holy Spirit for his counsel.

I want to end my speech with a Māori proverb and a quick Samoan farewell.

Kia mataara, e tū i runga i te whakapono, kia kaha, kia whakatāne, kia meatia ā koutou mea i runga i te aroha.

[Be wary, stand upon the belief of being staunch and manly, and perform your responsibilities with a feeling of compassion.]

It means: “To all members, be a champion for what you believe is right and, in doing so, be strong, but whatever you do, do it with love.” Finally: Ia alofagia e le Atua le moata nei, maua se tofa mai le Atua, aua le fofoga fetalai ma sui mamalu o le Palemene, ae ou ola I le alofa o le Silisili-ese. Soifua, ma ia manuia. Thank you, and God bless.

[Applause]

Pese

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare Pāremata. Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa. When I came to National from Labour, it was out of spite, but, like any convert, I became more zealous than many born to it. Maybe that is why the worst insult you can offer me is to call me a Tory. I joined the party in 1987 after my party, Labour, had moved so far to the right it was unrecognisable and the National Party had moved almost equally to the left—they had swapped sides. I had recently had my hopes of farming dashed by pressures of Labour’s reforms in the banking industry and the removal of assistance for farmers, which had been put in place post the UK moving into the European Economic Community. I scurried off back to the police and found myself as a sole-charge country cop in Pātea.

The then Minister of Labour had recently decided unemployment was getting too expensive. Instead of continuing the Work for the Dole and Public Employment Project scheme, which kept a lot of our troubled unemployed busy through the day and too buggered to play up at night, Labour decided it would can the scheme and just pay out the benefit because it was too expensive to administer. I knew it would turn to custard on the first day. Black Power decided to have a big booze-up to celebrate, and that developed into a huge scrap that I had to deal with alone. As I walked up to the melee, I thought to myself “Where the hell are you now, Prebble?”, and I resolved, surrealistic as it may seem, to join the National Party and teach the Labour Party a lesson.

A couple of weeks later, Neil Walker—who is somewhere in the gallery—knocked on my door while canvassing on behalf of Venn Young. I gave him $2 and joined the National Party, and I doubt that anybody in the Labour Party noticed. I do not want over-egg it, but I like to think that some of them have now. The funny thing is that for the next two elections I went into the booth and at the critical time I just could not tick the right box. Shamefully, some other third-party candidate got my squandered vote. I get accused of being in the wrong party by both parties.

It was quite a revelation to finally become an MP in 2005 and to see many of the faces from Lange’s Cabinet, and Labour candidates who in 1990 had campaigned solidly on Rogernomics, trying hard to extricate themselves from any connection whatsoever and swimming like crayfish backwards. In response to yet another assertion that National has only ever been interested in corruptly feathering the nests of its donors and does not care about the impoverished, I remember bellowing across the House in a general debate that Labour needs to keep its voters poor and pissed off so it will have someone to blame. My old mate Rajen Prasad was absolutely disgusted that I could say such a thing, but there it is—that is the House.

In the end, it seems to me that the right is about aspiration, accountability, and expectation and the left is about patronising, blaming, and excusing actions and behaviour. It is not what happens to us in life but it is how we respond to it.

Our “class of 2005” came into Parliament in Opposition, and we all agree that it was the best way to start a career in this place. Our seniors had long decided that they had been there long enough and had moved from grievance mode into looking like an alternative Government. I remember my daughter Katy sent me a note on the first day, wishing me all the best and advising me not to let the big kids push me around.

I worked with Simon Power on the justice and law and order team. He told us one day—I cannot do a very good Simon Power imitation, but it was something like: “They are not your friends. Labour’s got our jobs. You new guys just don’t hate them enough.” Funnily enough, we soon learnt that he himself regarded all members pretty well and was well regarded by all members, and I sought to take a leaf out of his book. I recall a line from his valedictory when he said “I came here to do things, not to be things.”, and I resolved to try to do the same.

In Opposition, I was appointed the police and youth justice spokesman. Anne Tolley and I spent several months working on policies that we would introduce in Government. When we visited the youth residence at Rolleston we found that 80 percent of the youth were there for their third, fourth, or fifth sentences of the maximum 3 months. This allowed them to be released long enough to reoffend and create new victims, before being sentenced again on another short, pointless, custodial sentence. Our policies included expanding the sentences available to the Youth Court and allowing for drug and alcohol, literacy and numeracy, anti-violence, other supervision sentences—such as supervision with activity and military activity camps (MAC camps)—and special conditions, all to be bolted on to a sentence such as supervision with residence.

The day John Key announced these policies he made it clear that a MAC camp was not a boot camp with some grumpy old sergeant major screaming at young offenders but precisely aimed at the complex needs of kids who offend and had been labelled “ticking time bombs” by the Principal Youth Court Judge. The next day the Dominion Post had Tom Scott’s cartoon of John Key in a sergeant major’s uniform calling a kid a scumbag. It fitted the purpose of the media and the Opposition, and I see from this week that nothing changes. Nevertheless, these changes halved the number of youth being sent to the District Court for sentencing, and have been independently attributed to drastically reducing youth offending. Just because a programme uses military premises and role models does not make it a paragon of a failed system. Youth passing through MAC camps who did go on to reoffend did so less frequently and less severely, and wanted desperately to stay on rather than go back to their homes because, for the first time in their lives, people were invested in them, cared about them, and wanted them to succeed for no selfish reason. History has shown there has been a marked drop-off in the number of youth appearing before the courts and a decline in offending, albeit serious offences are still committed by youth as they always have been, sadly.

One of my accomplishments was to convince our justice team that we could collect a DNA swab without a warrant in the same way that we collect fingerprints and photographs incidental to arrest. Previous to this time, we needed a separate warrant from a judge to be able to collect DNA. This simple change meant that any time an offender left skin, hair, semen, saliva, or blood at a crime scene, they could be identified. That ability has probably allowed for early identification and arrest, and prevented the victimisation of thousands of people.

I believe this Government has made some response for the inequities of our justice system so far, but that does not mean there is not stuff that we could do better. The first is to recognise who we are dealing with. I recall speaking at a Sensible Sentencing Trust conference once and having been challenged to put victims at the centre of the justice system, I responded that they were at the centre of the justice system and some of them were standing in the dock. That did not go down too well—but the truth hurts.

As Minister for Courts, Associate Minister of Justice, and Associate Minister for Social Development, I had the opportunity to apply myself in portfolios that I believed in, and had some experience with prior to coming to Parliament. I think my ministries’ greatest frustration was that I knew too much about the portfolios and was happy to turn up—in the Tony Ryall sense—unannounced, any time, anywhere. I was at a loose end in Christchurch once and wandered into the District Court and sat in the back row of the public gallery to have a listen. I had trouble hearing proceedings so I leaned back and closed my eyes, trying to concentrate on what was being said. A big burly policewoman tapped me on the shoulder and told me I could not sleep there. I told her to make it interesting and I would do my best to stay awake. A few minutes later, I had a nervous little court manager sitting beside me.

We expanded audiovisual links quite rapidly, which saved a lot of prisoner movements and the threat of violence that accompanies the cramped transport and accommodation of prisoners to court appearances. I have a vision for Skype-type courts, as it seems wrong to me that we can communicate across the planet on Skype but not within a courtroom in the same country, or even city. For administrative hearings or standard tariff guilty pleas, why can a lawyer and their client not appear by Skype from the lawyer’s office?

I also initiated a trial in the North Shore District Court to place the defendant alongside their counsel, just a couple of metres in front of the judge. This was to get around the ridiculous situation where the alleged offender is 10 to 15 metres away from his counsel and the judge, and not even part of the conversation in a hearing that, for those few minutes, is all about him. It also took account of the fact that the most frequently asked question at the end of any court case in this country is: “What the hell just happened?”. It does not look remotely like justice to me. The trouble is, much of our business in courts is conducted in a foreign language to those appearing before it. Some judges and counsel are very good at using plain English and taking time to engage with defendants, but many are not. At the end of the North Shore District Court trial nobody except the now ex-Minister and the defendants liked the reconfiguration, so nothing happened, but I think we missed a chance that we should have taken to make justice a little more real.

We had the opportunity to make big changes while I had the three hats of courts and youth justice policy and practice, and so constructed the Youth Crime Action Plan, which built a framework of policy and precedents for engaging with troubled youth for the next 10 years. It recognised that we needed to work across agencies: in this case Justice, Police, Corrections, Ministry of Social Development, Te Puni Kōkiri, Health, and Education. We have a plan and the test has been to see it implemented across portfolios, but these things need to be driven. It is very easy to wait Ministers out and then revert to business as usual within agencies, and that is a shame. Trying to get agencies to stop thinking in silos and pretending that whatever great initiative they have should not have to come from their budgets was tricky. People just pay tax. Politicians and bureaucrats divide it up into various buckets and guard them with their lives.

It is always important to see the irony and humour in any situation, and in politics it is the same. Having a sense of humour is key to not taking oneself too seriously. One of the debates I got stuck into early on was to run the conservative line on anti-smacking—the repeal of section 59. I drafted an amendment with the help of the Law Commission, which, on the face of it, looked like a pretty ugly amendment because it virtually prescribed a method for smacking your kids—but at least it would have been clear. It all ended when I heard on the radio that John Key had done a deal with Helen Clark. I was told to withdraw my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but that did not stop Rodney Hide crossing out my name and writing his, so I had to vote against my own SOP on the same day that I withdrew it.

Later on, John Boscawen came in to Parliament with the untimely departure of David Garrett—and I do not know whether his demise was more ironic or humorous, but it was bloody funny at the time—and he promptly printed off my amendment, crossed out Hide’s name, and wrote his name on it, and I had the happy joy of voting against my handiwork for a second time. In hindsight, the changes are working well and parents are much better at finding other ways of correcting their children than with violence. Fewer children are assaulted, although our serious child assault statistics remain appalling. Sometimes Parliament has to take the lead.

Around that time, I was involved with raising some money for a local wildlife reserve at Lake Rotokare. I got John Key, Bill English, and Nick Smith to paint a painting—under close supervision in my office. They were going to sign it themselves and everything. So they dutifully did exactly what they had to do, and while we were chatting away, John, for some reason, loaded up his brush with some bright red paint and drew a diagonal line from one corner to the other and then just put two sploshes of paint in each corner. I said “What the hell did you do that for?” and he said—I do not “do” John Key very well—“I think it looks pretty good, actually.” I told him he had taken it from the dark corner of the lounge to back of the dunny door. When it came to the auction, my very clever masterpiece, which I had sweated over for hours, sold for $530 and his went for $2,300. What the hell do I know about art?

I think one of the most enjoyable parts of being an MP is to see ourselves grow and our views change with more information and opportunity to rub shoulders with a different set of acquaintances. In 2014 I voted against gay marriage for reasons that were more legalistic than anything moral or principled. I thought the real debate was about gay adoption and that we should have debated that—I would have happily voted for gay adoption. Good parenting has got nothing to do with gender. But I have since been privileged to officiate as a celebrant at the wedding of a gay couple and recognise that people who love each other and form families are the backbone of a strong society. We should encourage them regardless. My view is that sometimes you just have to grow up, and I think I have—a bit.

I am proud of some of the achievements, such as securing integration of Wanganui Collegiate School, as failure to do so would have cost the city dearly. Working with Chris Finlayson, Maggie Barry, Nicola Williams, and Greg Anderson in securing the money to strengthen and renovate the Sarjeant Gallery is another project. Finally, seeing the Normanby alignment completed and opened was another, and smaller wins on behalf of constituents fighting against bureaucracy are just as rewarding.

Working with constituents is always rewarding, but sometimes challenging. I have enjoyed cutting through red tape, which has opened the doors for people needing surgery and for businesses wanting to expand and employ more staff. I worked to get some compensation by way of an ex gratia payment from Cabinet for the Berryman family, after several attempts before that had proven unsuccessful, and also for a police officer devastated by post-traumatic stress disorder.

I think of the battles that my Whanganui-based executive assistant (EA), Viv Chapman, has led on my behalf with Immigration, ACC, and the Ministry of Health, and getting in up to her elbows and knees in the lives of people to help get an operation, a visa to reunite a family, to make life better for an older person, or to get a house for a young mum who has just run up against a brick wall. We really do make a difference. Viv is also just as likely to turn up with a trailer load of firewood for a client. Viv, like rust, never sleeps.

I have had a number of run-ins with my former colleagues, you will be surprised to know—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: My colleagues in the police, rather, over the years. I have had a few run-ins with you lot too, actually. It all started with the police when I went from policeman to defence counsel. I was congratulated by my new colleagues on stepping into the light; the others thought I had gone to the dark side. Anyway, I picked up my fair share of speeding tickets, but when I became a member of Parliament, with my name and face all over my car, I became a real target.

The most high-profile incident, of course, was when I apparently ran over the toes of the aptly named Ms Treadwell—she did not, did she—when I had Minister Paula Bennett in the car. Thankfully, the matter was recorded in vivid technicolour by the media, and it is the first and only time I will say: “Thank God for the media.” I was tempted to quip that she should never had got between Paula Bennett and a shoe shop, but that was inappropriate and was not true. I was more annoyed than worried about the prosecution, but to have the police running around soliciting Crown prosecutors on the Thursday and Friday before the Monday trial was a bit over the top. I am grateful for the support, though, that I had from MPs across the House and from my caucus who paid over half the bill.

I recall another case when a young mum was suffering from a condition that meant that she desperately needed gastric bypass surgery. She was 205 kilograms, 25 years old, and had been told that if she did not have surgery quickly, she would pass away. I lobbied the district health board (DHB) for surgery but it refused. I gave the matter some publicity and eventually the Korean Government stepped up and offered to fly her to Korea for the surgery that she needed. She had the surgery and returned with no ill effects, and she has now lost her weight, maintains good health, and has had two new children since the operation. I only wish the Whanganui DHB could take credit for that.

I got a scathing email from someone calling on me to stop helping out people who should be helping themselves. No doubt, this guy is built like a Norwegian racing sardine. He said the woman just needed to eat less and exercise more, so I responded with a one-word email: “Idiot”. My wife, Ella, absolutely bollocked me and said: “What the hell are you going to do if this turns up on the front page of the Dominion?”. I said: “Look, there are idiots out there and we have a duty to tell them before they start playing with matches and running with scissors.”

Finally, I want to say thanks to all those whom I have been privileged to work with in Parliament, in Government, and in caucus. I want to thank you, Mr Speaker—David—for making this role fun. I do not think anyone comes into Parliament aspiring to be the Deputy Speaker. It is generally offered as a compromise or tarted up as a compliment in lieu of the job you really wanted. But thanks for your leadership and friendship, and the leadership and friendship of your team—and friends—Roland, Lisa, and Oliver.

Thanks to Sir John Key and the Rt Hon Bill English for their leadership in standards and discipline, which has kept our party on a straight course and heading into another election in good nick—confident but not cocky. Thanks for the opportunities given and the team spirit generated from that strong leadership.

Thanks to my caucus mates, especially the “class of ’05”, for the fun we have had and the gains we have made. I am relying on classmates to delete certain video clips of certain re-enactments—Coleman. At class drinks on a Wednesday night, it will be straight home for me from now on. I especially want to single out in the House my cousins Chris Finlayson and Annette King. I was absolutely convinced I was the favourite cousin of both of them until recently, but I am prepared to concede it is a three-way tie.

To my electorate team chairs like Neil Walker, Gerard Langford, David Bennett, the late Paul Mitchell, Jan Bullen, and Katrina Warren, and all the campaigners, confidants, supporters, and donors—many, many thanks for your care, love, support, and wise counsel.

To all my staff who have become friends over many years—Viv Chapman, Sue Turahui, Marie Stowe, and Kath Weir in the electorate offices; EAs Kristy Ortel, Kate Pullar, Hannah Hammad, Carla Hemmes, Vasoula Kappatos, Orphee Mickalad, and Rob Webb; my senior private secretary, “Captain” Marie Morgan; Frances Kerei, Oliver Searle, Richard Beresford, Lo’l Vole, Casey Freeman, Rachel Sutherland, Amy Smith, Logan Morton, Michael Warren, and Rachel Crawley—it has been magic working with you. The fact that the old ministerial office still gets together and has breakfast once a month—or about once a month—is a huge compliment. Thanks so much.

To those who make this place tick in the Office of the Clerk—the Table Office, Hansard—Parliamentary Service, VIP Transport Service, and Ministerial Services, a big thanks. To security staff and Chamber security—thank you so much, especially to Jenny Ng who has been such an encouragement in respect of my painting.

I want to thank the media for generally being available. It is usually the other way around, but it is part of our job to get oxygen for the stories we want to get up—as you have been pretty obliging, I want to say thanks. There was the odd story I wish had not got up and got legs, but it was usually at times when I had opened my mouth to change feet, so no hard feelings. I think about the odd quip in select committees about policing in Wairoa; about health and safety, Mike; about depositions hearings, Simon; about the Rt Hon Winston Peters at other times. On occasions these stories have led me to apologise to the caucus for saying what I really thought. On other occasions we have ended up in a better space. I have often wondered why the media and politicians do not get on better than we do, bearing in mind we are equally hated, mistrusted, and misunderstood by the public. We hardly exist without the other and we eat each other’s lunches to survive.

I want to thank tangata whenua who have steered and guided me in many ways that have led to a far greater understanding of who I am as a Pākehā—actually, of who I am as Chester Borrows. I enjoy a warm friendship with iwi of the Taranaki and Whanganui, for which I am most grateful, and especially to Dame Tariana Turia, for her aroha, wise counsel, and the odd telling remark. From the time I turned up as a 28-year-old still-wet-behind-the-ears policeman in Pātea, until today as a 60-year-old, you have walked alongside me, you have steered me generously, and I thank you so much for that. You have changed the way I am and will be for ever.

I want to give a nod to the mayors and the councils of the electorates with whom I have always had a good working relationship. For a while the most frequently asked question I was asked as the member of Parliament for Whanganui was: “How do you get on with Michael Laws?”. I can honestly say that we got on very well and he helped me immensely. Michael tried very hard to keep the “h” out of Whanganui and when he could not, he got the “f” out of Whanganui. But I do miss the challenges and the conversations that we had and hope we can catch up soon. To the others: Mary Bourke, Ross Dunlop, Neil Volzke, Annette Main, and my old combatant Hamish McDouall—thanks for your collaboration and all that you do for our communities. To my successor, Harete Hipango, I wish you all the best in your new role as MP for Whanganui.

Kia kaha, ngā mihi nui ki a koe.

[Be strong, and huge thanks to you.]

Most importantly, I want to thank my wife, of whom I am very proud. She stood by and watched the germ of this dream through its execution and now completion. Ella has always encouraged me to have a crack at my next biggest ambition whatever it was—within the Police, farming, back to the Police, politics, the law, back to politics, and who knows what now, after completing some commissioned paintings and a few odd jobs around the house. Thanks for everything.

My kids, Abi, Katy, and Zac, and their partners, Mike, James, and Kristina, I am so grateful that you never got on the news for the wrong stuff—not like your father. In spite of all the missed events over the past 18 or so years, as I have either tried to get here or tried to stay here, we are still on good terms. I look forward to spending a lot more time with you, making up for lost opportunities.

To wider family and friends—I acknowledge that the public think that we live in a bubble without family members who get sick and need operations or die on waiting lists, and without friends who offend and go to jail or lose their jobs or lose their businesses, but we do not. I have lost my dad to cancer and I have lost my mum to dementia, and I miss them horribly. You friends have kept me real when many think that MPs have no tangible link with reality, and I apologise for neglecting you over the years and I look forward to re-acquaintance over a beer, the footy, at the beach, the pub, or at our place sometime soon.

Finally, in my maiden speech I quoted the scripture Micah 6:8, which says: “What does the Lord demand of you but that you love kindness, do justice, and walk humbly before your God.” It is for others to debate, or to pass judgment on, but I hope that I have lived up to that.

That is it. It is a privilege to give this valedictory; many do not get that opportunity. But the fish and chips are ordered and they will need to be wrapped in something. We all want to be remembered fondly, so I guess I will choose the manner to which I have become accustomed. As I said to my previous boss, Sir John Key: “I remain that loyal old Labrador you’ll never know whether to pat on the head or boot up the arse.”

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

Hon CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): On 17 September 2005 Chris Tremain and I turned Hawke’s Bay, the best region in New Zealand, National Party blue. Hawke’s Bay has the best environment, the best food, the best wine, the best apples, the best lamb, the best golf courses, the best beaches, the best restaurants, the best cafes, the best iwi, and, of course, the best, friendliest, most laid-back people in New Zealand. The major difference between 2005 and 2017 in Hawke’s Bay is the confidence we now have in ourselves across the bay that we can now begin to realise our awesome and amazing potential.

To the families of Hawke’s Bay, thank you so much—thank you so much for the privilege of representing you for the past 12 years. The bay is absolutely humming. Confidence is up, job growth is up, investment is up—everything is heading in the right direction.

To my Tukituki team, especially Kevin Trerise and Ian Ellengold—what a successful ride we have had. To my campaign teams: Tony Mossman, Todd Hansen, Tim Morris, Nick Stewart, Laurie Harrison, Jo Harvey, Jackie Black, Aimee Stewart—thank you so much, to you, to your families, to your partners, and to everyone else who has helped us along the way. We built, in 2005, a new campaign model. We beat a Labour Minister, and we won, and we won, and we won, and we won. We are all finishing undefeated.

To the Hansen family, David in particular, thank you so much—and, of course, the entire Shoal Beach gang, who have been so supportive but kept me very, very grounded.

Since joining the Nats—the National Party—in 2000, throughout some initially very tough but, later, the best of times, you could say I have done 17 years hard labour, of which 12 years were as a National MP, with 5½ years as a Minister. My parliamentary goals were always to be true to my values of honesty, integrity, trust, fairness, and empathy; to stay positive; and to always be respectful and never get nasty and personal. None of those attributes tend to rate very highly in the annual “marks out of 10” score cards of political success, but they matter totally for me, and I think they matter a lot for most of New Zealand. For me, politics was the price to pay for a better New Zealand. That price has been pretty expensive along the way, as I increasingly struggled to fit my value set with the value sets and the values that are recognised and rewarded in politics.

Recently on Parliament TV, unfortunately, it looked like I had a comb-over. I was mortified. I checked the mirror, ran the tape again in slow motion, and convinced myself that, no, I did not have a comb-over. It was just the harsh lighting on TV, which, incidentally, also adds quite a few kilos to all of us—I know that all members will agree with me on that one.

I entered Parliament to help build a better Hawke’s Bay and a better New Zealand—a country that would have a decent chance at sharing our children’s future. We have come so far since 2005, when 30,000 friends and family were leaving New Zealand every single year. Family and friends are now coming home and staying home. That is the best measure of what a great, fantastic country New Zealand is. But there is so much yet to do to lock in our hard-won gains and to continually realise and raise expectations of what is possible in this stunningly beautiful country.

To me, the “black box” of politics was—and often is still—quite a mystery. Sometimes it does not matter how logical, rational, good work and positive outcomes might go into the “black box” of politics; sometimes quite illogical, irrational, and negative outcomes come out of that “black box”. But that is politics.

When CJ and I first flew into Wellington in 2005, we were greeted by a quite pleasant chap. He offered us a ride into Parliament. He seemed very interested in us and was asking a lot of questions. This was a very early lesson in politics. We later discovered he was from the lobby firm Saunders Unsworth, and he used that information to complete a book about new MPs, which they went on to sell for about $600 a pop.

For the past few months I have been in the “departure lounge” on the ground floor of Parliament House. The press gallery, much to our horror, recently moved in next door, to their very flash, newly refurbished offices. Press gallery photos going back over 100 years now adorn our corridor, and I could swear that some of the current press gallery members, who often advocate for renewal and rejuvenation, feature in some of those very early photos.

To my wonderful wife, Kristal, and my darling daughters, Sophie and Laura—thank you so much for allowing me to do this crazy job, which at times totally took my attention away and blinded me to the things that really matter. Kristal, you deserve such thanks, such recognition, and, no doubt, a showering of gifts. What incredible strength you have, my darling. Sophie, thank you so much for all your support. Mum and Dad are so very, very proud of you. The world is totally yours for taking—you are so very, very talented. Laura, thank you so much for all of your support. Mum and Dad are so proud of you. You have only ever known me as an MP, but, yes, I am very keen to be your helper, your driver, and your chief horse poo picker-upper as long as I am needed. I have practised a lot down here.

To my parents, Ray and Rosemary, who always believed their little boy from Taitā and Naenae and Lower Hutt could become an MP—thank you, Mum, and I have finally forgiven you for my having to wear the plastic rugby boots when times were a bit tough in our early days. To my brother, Brett and his family, Leonie, Mikayla, and Zoe; to my sister, Sharon—and happy birthday to Sharon—and her family, Alan and Claire; to Ann Benda, who looked out for me even as a little boy in Taitā; and also to Kristal’s family, Graeme, Nick, David, Stefan, Kathy, and your wonderful families—thank you so much for all of your support.

I am a total team player, always putting the team before myself, and I value immensely the teams I have built and worked alongside. Everyone who has been part of “Team Foss” over the years is very special to me, and I am indebted to you.

We depend very, very heavily on our electorate staff, and increasingly so as we become Ministers. Susanna Clark, thank you so much. I am sure you will whip Lawrence into shape as much as you have trained me. I so wish Glen was still with us, at least to keep you in line! I would even drive a Holden if it would bring him back.

Matthew Kenning, who has been by my side right from the start—thanks, mate. You are an absolute legend. And by the way, the only reason I gave you a hard time about your beard was because of my pathetic attempts to try to grow one myself. Judy Young, constantly bossing us around and telling us off—thank you so much, Judy. Faith Sarten and Susan Palmer from my original parliamentary team, Julie Hartnell, Leanne Marshall, and Jo Lyndon—thank you again so much. To Rachael Kerr, who is watching in Dubai, I think, now—congrats on your new adventure. Your wicked sense of humour was exposed to us all when Judy told us how she worked out how much her husband, Alan, weighed. To Steph McKay—we had such great fun together, and I forgive you for always being that person whom Customs, Immigration, and security always pull aside for a quick chat. Lauren Newell, you have done a great job. Back yourself, and you will do very, very well.

To my oldest and truest friends, my mates from primary school and secondary school, and, of course, the legendary Hutt Old Boys J7 Scaley Scumbag Griffith Memorial Trophy winners—sorry for losing touch. Please put a beer in the fridge. I will be coming round for a catch up. Your pride at my success and your messages when I have been under the pump have been so, so valuable to me.

To our “class of 2005”—the National Party class—we have had a lot of fun together. There were 24 of us who came in. Our whips were terrified of us. They were terrified of the trouble our idle hands could make, as we outnumbered the wise heads. They desperately searched for ways to keep us busy and out of trouble. I still remember the classic line from our whip at the time: “Talk to me if you have anything to hide, and in the meantime, read all of the briefings to the incoming Ministers and select committee reports.” Of course we did. Our Wednesday night drinks often finished some time early on Thursday morning, as we shared our wisdom, strategies, and solutions. Most political problems were solved on those nights, but were somehow forgotten the next morning.

My first ministerial role was as Minister for Racing. On day one, having just received my warrant, I proudly sat at my desk on the sixth floor of Bowen House, contemplating the racing industry. I looked out the window and, much to my amusement and surprise, there in my direct line of sight, mounted on top of the cenotaph, was the rear end of a horse.

As Minister, I represented the Government at numerous national days. For the Russian national day, my speech was written phonetically. I thought I had delivered it very well, pronouncing all the tough words as they appeared in front of me. I later learnt that I had welcomed the diplomatic corpse, instead of the diplomatic corps. Apparently, Murray McCully did not notice any difference.

As Minister of Broadcasting, I attended my first board meeting with Television New Zealand in its offices in Auckland opposite the Skycity hotel. All was going very well, as I was seriously laying out my plans and ambitions for broadcasting. Much to my surprise, a naked man appeared above the shoulder of the chairman. I am sure this naked bloke had absolutely no idea that at that moment, the sun was at just the right angle for us to see him standing starkers at his window, looking down on the board meeting of Television New Zealand. And, for the record, no, I did not recognise him.

I loved the irony of being driven down at 160 kilometres per hour on a 14-lane freeway of oil-black asphalt between Abu Dhabi and Dubai, powered by a deliciously humming V8 combustion engine, when with me were the environmental spokespeople from the Greens and the Labour Party, who were also enjoying the ride.

I leave behind many legendary exploits, I say, as a member of the Parliamentary Rugby Team. The highlight was playing, and beating, England at Twickenham. In another game I marked and heroically crash-tackled All Black legend Frank Bunce. I thought I had done very well and I was thinking that the All Black selectors would now realise the error of their ways for never ever picking me. Sadly, a photo was taken of the incident. It shows me on the ground wrapped around Frank’s ankles holding on for dear life, while he is beautifully balanced, getting a pass away, oblivious to this puffing wreck on the ground below him.

Thank you so much to my various private secretaries, whose contribution makes all the difference. You are such valuable members of our team. I heard back from a department where an official wrote: “It was an honour to work for a Minister of his integrity and determination.”

Statistics New Zealand is probably the most undervalued asset on the Crown balance sheet. It is a golden nugget, a centre of absolute global excellence of data gathering, analytics, and stewardship. I hope it can cope with the disruption that is coming. I worked very hard with Statistics New Zealand to change its culture to an open-data environment. On two separate occasions different male private secretaries took this openness a bit too far, for literally, for a few hours in the Beehive office, they decided that wearing trousers was optional.

To the staff from the various portfolios and select committees, CEOs, and chiefs, New Zealand and I owe you so much. You are the foundation for New Zealand consistently being at the top of global rankings for public service transparency, accountability, and excellence.

I have had 17 different portfolios and many select committees, often as chair or deputy. I drove the reform of the New Zealand financial markets, company, consumer credit and protection, and intellectual property law. We now have world-best commercial and consumer legislation. Watching loan sharks now being held to account in the courts is very satisfying.

The Financial Markets Conduct Act (FMC) was a massive piece of legislation—about 700 pages—to update, upgrade, and modernise the New Zealand capital markets. We introduced new ways and new pathways for capital, such as crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending. The FMC is the platform that can enable New Zealand to realise and leverage its excellent position around the world. My reference points were always quite simple, and the context of the question I would always pose was what was in the best long-term interest for New Zealand. My mission was always to lower the financial risk premium on New Zealand, thereby lowering the cost of capital. Or, to put it simply, all of these reforms contribute to lower mortgages for us all.

The passing of the Patents Act was initially quite a struggle. Feelings got quite heated. One side was saying I was captured by evil American software companies; the other side said the world would end if I did not allow patents for software. We found a solution, and the bill passed unanimously. There was always an obvious clue to the direction I was going to take. My surname is Foss—the acronym for free open-source software—and they missed it. Turning off analog TV to make all broadcasts digital was another highlight.

I appointed many people to many different boards. I was asked why I kept rejecting the initial lists of finalists for appointees. I replied that there were hardly ever any women, Māori, Pacific Islanders, or Asians on the final lists. Very competent and successful female directors are out there just waiting to be asked. In the end I think I appointed at least 50 percent females in my time. Diversity is not a threat. It is not some trendy, silly, lefty idea. It is actually quite rational and sensible. Studies demonstrate that organisations that embrace diversity actually outperform organisations that do not. It is not a big deal; just get on with it.

Prime Minister, I wish you and our team the very, very best. Your experience, depth, intellect, and respect on the world stage serve New Zealand so well. In these globally turbulent times, stability and experience are exactly what is needed to keep our country safe, our economy growing, and our family and friends at home or returning home. Your strong family values and your faith serve New Zealand very well.

There are many issues that Parliament talks about that, much as we would like to, we simply cannot fix. An attitudinal and cultural shift is needed to stop so much of the hurt. To begin, we need more homes than houses, more dads than fathers, more mums than mothers, more nanas and grandads, and fewer caregivers. Far too many partners—far, far too many partners—are abusive. Children are getting hurt. Unconditional love is not known, not felt, not even recognised by far, far too many. That must change. That must stop. And the change must start now.

My personal highlight in Government was as Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. We owe the freedom of this House and this country to so many who were put or put themselves between us and danger. Let me share a story that started at 12.51 on 22 February 2011 in Christchurch. I was in the tragic and incredibly frightening big earthquake. I was so lucky to get out that night, back to Wellington. I was attending a business luncheon when the quake struck. I took refuge under a table with, would you believe, Michael Cullen and about 20 others. As we left the smashed-up restaurant, I turned round to Michael and said: “Mate, don’t take it personally, but I really didn’t want to spend my last few hours with you.” “To be fair,” Michael said, “the feeling’s mutual.”

When we were safely outside I called Gerry Brownlee. I said there had just been a huge earthquake in Christchurch, and asked whether there was anything I could do to help him and his family. He said: “Thanks, mate. Sorry, but I’m in rehab.” I thought: “Really?”. I hung up thinking: “Well, Gerry’s in rehab. We’ve kept that quiet.” Actually, as it turned out, Gerry was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, not in rehab.

There were many, many deaths in Christchurch, particularly in the CTV Building. New Zealand and Turkey forged an enduring and unique bond at Gallipoli in 1915. What is not commonly known is that a beautiful, 31 years young, Turkish woman, Didem Yaman, who was killed in the Christchurch quake was actually from Gallipoli. While I was in Gallipoli in 2015 for the centenary of Anzac Day, I visited her dad. There was a shrine to her in his home. Her passport, her tandem skydiving photos, her library cards, and photos she had sent home were all on display. With all the conflict and terror around the world at any time, at that moment nothing else mattered as I comforted that dad. He missed his daughter so very, very much. We hugged and we cried. Atatürk’s famous words that our Johnnies were now safe were now even more true—with a few changes—with this Turkish woman now resting in New Zealand.

In April 2015 I took a taonga to Gallipoli. I wanted to take something from Hawke’s Bay to the place where so many from Hawke’s Bay and the East Coast had served and now lay buried. The whānau of the late, great Tama Huata gave me a stone from the Tukituki River that was blessed with the mauri of the Tukituki and Heretaunga. In April 2015 I placed that stone on the mass grave of 632 New Zealanders buried at the top of Chunuk Bair. In August 2015 I visited again for the commemorations of Chunuk Bair. We climbed the Kiwi track and on reaching the top found the stone now well nestled into the ground. Someone had placed a pounamu on top of it. An incredible sadness came up from the ground and enveloped all of us. That very, very special moment will stay with me for ever.

I am very proud to have led the policy change to allow repatriation of New Zealand soldiers buried outside of a recognised war cemetery. I visited each soldier’s grave in Malaysia and Singapore. I paid my respects and placed a poppy on every grave. As I placed my poppy, the New Zealand uniformed defence representative accorded his compliments and saluted. I discovered that one soldier’s wedding anniversary was on the day we were at his grave in Malaysia. His wife was still alive in New Zealand. I quietly organised a full bouquet of flowers for the soldier, and placed it on his headstone.

Recently I was asked why I did not tell the press about that type of story—I have many, many similar stories. It would have been a great tear jerker of a story for TV and media, and fantastic for my political image. I replied that I just did not want the integrity of what I was doing, or the dignity of the soldiers, to be diluted in any way by a few free headlines back home. I simply did what was right and dignified. Throughout my career I would often weigh up gaining political advantage and profile versus doing what was right and good. I kept the faith that those in the end who truly matter will know of the good that I have done. Some say it is my political weakness; I say it is my personal strength.

Finally, I have recently completed the advanced management programme at the No. 1 business school in the world, INSEAD. That programme was a stunning reminder to me of what can be achieved in a positive, stimulating, and diverse environment. I am very proud to have been chosen as one of the leaders of 79 CEOs and C-suite people from 33 different countries.

I would describe my time in Parliament in one word: awesome. Of course there have been a few bumps and disruptions along the way, but they are so outweighed by the amazing opportunities and unique experiences. It has been a total privilege to be the member of Parliament for Tukituki, Hawke’s Bay. Please take care of yourselves. They say nice guys finish last in politics; on the contrary, this nice guy is finishing first. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Hon HEKIA PARATA (National):

Tērā te haeata takiri ana mai i runga o Hikurangi!

Ara tai uru, whai uru, whai uru!

Ara whai ato, whai ato, whai ato!

Ara rā tini, ara rā tini, ara ri!

Tēnei au tetahi o ngā uri a ngā koro tūpuna, a Porourangi rāua ko tōna teina, a Tahupōtiki me te kōka tipuna, a Hamoterangi, e mihi nei. Tēnā koutou, tātou, e whakawhāitihia tātou, ākuni ka hiki Te Whare Pāremata mō tēnei tau toru. Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, koutou ko ō kaiāwhina, kaimahi hoki e whakahaere nei i tēnei Whare rangatira, tēnei matatini o ngā rohe katoa o Aotearoa whānui. Kei te mana whenua Te Ātiawa, ngā mihi ki a koutou ngā kaitiaki o tēnei wāhi, e manaaki nei i a mātou, e whakamahia ngā tikanga mo ngā iwi katoa ēhara, mā koutou anakē, tēnā koutou. Kei ngā iwi katoa o Aotearoa, iwi taketake, iwi Tiriti, ngā hau e whā, tēnā, nau mai, piki mai, ki roto ki tēnei Whare, tō hau te marae o ngā tangata katoa, te marae mō ngā tangata katoa, hara mai, hoki mai, hara mai.

Me poroporoaki tātou ki a rātou kua mene atu ki te pō, kua hipa atu te tatau a Hine-nui-te-pō, haere koutou, haere. Ko Parekura tēnā, taku tūngāne, moe mai rā. Hoki mai ki a tātou ngā waihotanga iho o rātou mā, ngā kanohi ora, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa!

[The rays of the morning sun strike a new dawn upon Hikurangi!

Rise up the inland, follow it through,

fence it in, surround it,

arise the many, the innumerable, arise indeed!

Here I am, this one of the descendants of the forefathers, Porourangi and his younger sibling Tahupōtiki, and the grandmother, Hamoterangi, making this acknowledgment. Salutations to you collectively, and to us assembled here. Parliament will rise presently for this third year. Accolades to you, Mr Speaker, and your assistants and workers as well, who administer this noble House, this complex that belongs to all regions of New Zealand at large. To you the mandated authority, Te Ātiawa, guardians of this place, who take care of us here and carry out the cultural requirements on behalf of all tribes, and not just for you alone, well done. To all the tribes of New Zealand, the indigenous ones, Treaty ones, and ones from the four winds, now then come hither, climb aboard, come into this House, yours, the marae that belongs to everyone, and for all the people, welcome, welcome home, come forth.

Let us farewell those ones who have assembled in the void, who have passed through the doorway of Hine-nui-te-pō, depart you ones, farewell. That is my brother Parekura, rest there. Let us come back to us, the ones they left behind, the faces of the living throughout our House, salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you all!]

Today is a day of thanks. My performance as a member of Parliament and as a Minister is a matter of public record and for others to judge. I am leaving with a great sense of gratitude for the immense privilege it has been to serve, in this way, in this time, my fellow New Zealanders and our country. I am leaving satisfied with what I have been able to contribute, proud of a number of achievements, stronger and more resilient than I ever imagined I would have to be. I am leaving with huge optimism for our future and the settled conviction that I was blessed to have been born to these Pacific isles a New Zealander—well, a Ngati Porou woman New Zealander, to be absolutely accurate. I guess I was just lucky.

We, all of us, are the sons and daughters, descendants, of adventurers, navigators, visionaries, risk-takers, brave and tenacious people with imagination, grit, and hope, who crossed Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, whether by whale, waka, ship, or plane, to make this place, Aotearoa New Zealand, their home. Ours is a small, smart, sassy nation, and all of us have a responsibility to our forebears and to those who come after us to make it even better.

I have enjoyed the great gift of being a part of this House of Representatives, and our Government, as we have taken up that responsibility. We have served 9 years as a National-led coalition Government to build a better New Zealand than we found it, and we have done that in many practical, significant, and measurable ways. All of those will be examined and judged over the coming weeks, and I trust that New Zealanders will value the unique blend of stability and competence, fresh ideas, and the detail and experience to execute them that our team offers. I leave knowing that my place and those of my colleagues who are also leaving are filled by capable, energetic, and thoughtful people. We must constantly refresh if we are to stay relevant to New Zealand families, and I am proud that our caucus and new candidates reflect that challenge.

As our coalition separates for the battle ahead, I want to acknowledge our partners, United Future, ACT, and Te Pāti Maori, and to thank them for the support they have given me in the policy and legislative initiatives I have pursued. Ngā mihi. To my parliamentary colleagues: thank you for being a part of the active democracy that New Zealand is and must always be, and for your commitment to making this the best country that it can possibly be. Tēnā koutou.

I found it extremely difficult preparing for this valedictory statement. It is a challenge to distil to a handful all the memories, to ensure all those who should be mentioned are, and that Hansard records a fitting end to my time here. The expectations feel very high. It reminds me of a time I was standing in the wings of the year 7 to 13—that would be form 1 to form 7—leadership conference in Taranaki, and I asked my 11-year-old introducer what he thought I should say. He looked up at me hopefully and asked: “Can you be funny?”. In a nanosecond I could see he had written that possibility off and trudged on to the stage with me following in his wake—just so you know.

I am proud to be a member of the National Party, to have served in a National-led Government, and to make policy based on values of equal citizenship and equal opportunity, of individual freedom and choice, of personal accountability and responsibility, of competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement, and of limited Government and the challenge to create the conditions in our economy and our society so New Zealanders of whatever background have the opportunity to realise their potential. That is the essence of rangatiratanga, the kind I am interested in—the personal, practical, everyday kind where New Zealanders are self-determining, are in charge of their own lives, are able to make choices, and are able to live independent of the Government. I have always said I will leave the “tino” variety to iwi.

In my maiden speech almost 9 years ago I said that I wanted to contribute to developing quality citizenship for all New Zealanders, and a defining aspect of that would be the reduction of dependence on the State. I have been part of a Government that has, in response, focused on a strong and growing economy, the creation of new jobs, raising the level of qualifications and skills, finding new trade opportunities, and investing in infrastructure, science, and innovation. None of that on its own sounds that sexy or exciting, but unless we have those, we do not have the ingredients for the recipe of a sustainably better life.

The other side of that is the social well-being and welfare of people. That is what our social investment approach led by the Prime Minister is about. To achieve equality of citizenship, there must be unequal resource and support for those most vulnerable, those least able to help themselves. We know better than ever who we need to help, and how we marshal the resources of the Government to do that. In turn we have seen a reduction in benefit dependence.

The binary nature of politics is that if you have not done absolutely everything, you are accused of not having done anything. Not true. We have done much, and there is much more to do, but in doing so we have to keep in mind the hard work of New Zealanders represented in their taxes and savings. I know that when promises are made to spend more it is not the “Government’s money” as so many assert. It is the teachers’, the nurses’, the policemen’s, the builders’, the plumbers’, the electricians’, and the businesses’, small and big. It is my whānau’s, planting seedlings on eroding hillsides in drenching rain, or collecting hives in blistering heat, or fixing potholes and slips and drains as logging truck drivers loop tediously along State Highway 35. That is whose money it is; not the Government’s. That is whom we have to account to, and I have never lost sight of that as we have sought to make the best decisions with their money.

In my maiden speech I also said that I wanted to “join the crusade for literacy and numeracy and for a good-quality education for every New Zealand student.” I said that “We must adopt an uncompromising attitude that failure is not an option. All our other aspirations for economic growth, raised standards of living, and national confidence and pride will flow from getting these basics right.” And, of course, I had the tremendous opportunity as Minister of Education to carry out my 6-year crusade.

I came from a modest background. We did not own the home we grew up in. We never owned a car all the time we were growing up. With the change in our family circumstances, we were so grateful for a State house and my mother for the DPB, as it was then known. We worked before- and after-school jobs to support our family, and through it all we knew that getting a good education was the answer to a better life. Every opportunity I have had has arisen out of having that education, and hard work. That is why I have been so focused on rewiring our education system to make sure that every one of our young people gets the opportunity of the best education possible.

But before that, I held portfolios or associate responsibilities for women’s affairs, ethnic affairs, energy and resources, the community and voluntary sector, and ACC. I learnt something from all of these, but energy and resources was the portfolio I learnt the most in, in understanding what a rich set of resources we have around and in our country. It was also the portfolio that got me pretty much excommunicated from my tuakana iwi, Te Whānau-a-Apanui, for proceeding with the approval for exploration for oil and gas in the Raukūmara basin. It was somewhat awkward, given that we have a home there and we would have to drive past garages and fences saying bilingually just what an egg I was.

It was also during my stewardship that the Māui Gas pipeline went down, taking with it all the hot water in hotels and motels from Taupō North, turning off milking sheds, factories, and businesses across the same vast area. I learnt there was a protocol for the priority of who got reconnected first as the line became restored, and I was lobbied and lobbied. But in that process, I learnt that Sanitarium, Chelsea, and Fonterra were the necessary trifecta for half the country getting a good start to the day. And, of course, Orion energy made sure that it could restore power safely and methodically across Christchurch. One of the privileges one has as a Minister is to meet outstanding New Zealanders, and to see the skills, knowledge, ingenuity, and good humour they bring to their everyday work, and most particularly in a crisis.

And then, I got Education. This was my dream job and the reason I ran for Parliament. When the then Prime Minister rang to tell me, I practically perforated his ear drum I was so excited. Apparently that has not often been the response to being offered the education portfolio. In addition, I was given the Pacific Island affairs portfolio, and what an honour that was. Back when I was training to be a diplomat in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs—I know, when people think of me the first word that springs to mind is “diplomatic”. Back then in the 1980s I was arguing for a more Pacific-centred policy, for New Zealand to see itself as part of the Pacific, not just on the other side of it.

I loved my time in the portfolio, meeting Pacific people, who were working so hard, who were committed to their children doing well, who were singing in church the way we did growing up, and who were producing some of the best sports men and women and increasingly excelling across the health sector in particular. I also learnt from this, together with the ethnic affairs portfolio, how real and alive the diverse cultures are that make up our communities and the richness this adds to all our lives. I think they also have more hui and longer hui than the Māori people do—just saying.

I want to thank our former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Sir John Key for his leadership. He brought a clinical set of decision-making tools to the job, together with a wholehearted embrace of this country, a confidence about our place in the world, and an unshakeable optimism about what was possible. As a boss, he appointed you to a role, gave you general guidance, and trusted you to get on with it. That was at times both scary and exhilarating—probably for him as well as me. I want to record my thanks for his unflagging support.

It was the Prime Minister in 2013 who encouraged me to look at something big for education. Of course, it was the then Minister of Finance, the right honourable Prime Minister today, who had to be persuaded to fund it. And that, folks, is how we got what I think will truly be transformational for our education system: communities of learning or kāhui ako that keep everything that is special and different about individual schools and early learning centres but systematically joins them in a collaboration centred on the child and their 18-year learning pathway. It cost a shipload of money—$359 million, the biggest single social investment initiative we had made as a Government. It puts the emphasis on the student and their learning and achievement, and it creates 6,000 new roles for teachers and leaders. I want to put on record here my appreciation of the leadership role that the Post Primary Teachers’ Association took in this initiative. To be clear, peace did not then break out; we did continue to argue and disagree about other things.

I also want to thank the many teachers and education leaders who not only have embraced this opportunity but every day bring care and commitment, capability and competence, fun and innovation to the children and young people in their centres and classrooms. We have some of the best educators and education practices in the world, and we see the value in that in the rising achievement of our young people. We have about 2,500 schools and over 5,000 early learning centres and just under a million young New Zealanders engaged in learning. My relentless expectation as Minister of Education was that every child in every classroom every day was learning and achieving. I appropriated from a speech I heard from the then Chief Review Officer, Dr Graham Stoop, a line that said: “The core business of a school is to cause learning to happen and to know that it did”—as simple and as complicated as that.

We have an education system with an architecture that is one of the best in the world. But, like my generation and smart phones, we use only a small amount of its potential. I saw my job as rewiring the system and leveraging that architecture to make sure that it serves every Kiwi kid, to push those who are doing well to do even better, and to pick up those that the system had been leaving behind. I am glad to say that we now have the data to know that all population groups have lifted, and, in particular, at senior secondary, Māori and Pasifika students are achieving at almost twice the rate from when we came into Government in 2008. Those are real kids with real results able to make real choices about what is next for them. That is great for them and that is great for our country.

I had the privilege as Minister of Education to visit centres and schools up and down the country and to see the magic that so many of them create. Little Ōturu School in the Far North is developing natural cures for cellulitis and then selling them. Sylvia Park School is involving its whole community in art and sculpture and the living environment. A primary school in Māngere East is lifting numeracy through “Bobbie maths”, a culturally based team approach. Te Kura Māori a Rohe o Ngā Tapuwai is turning out ki-o-rahi exponents and top scholars. Tarawera High School in Kawerau, Tamatea High in Flaxmere, and Pātea High in Taranaki are achieving phenomenal results due to high-quality leadership. Tolaga Bay Area School is leading a whole-of-community inquiry based on the transit of Venus and an ongoing ecological project partnering with iwi and the wider community. Kaiti School is leading the way in teaching excellence. A little Nelson Lakes school is introducing ethics-based studies to 6, 7, and 8-year-olds. There are 23 Marlborough schools forming a community of learning. Haeata Community Campus, formed from four schools in Christchurch East, is leading a revolution in learning and lifting the community as it does so.

I have this brilliant idea—are there any other kinds—that I offer to the universe today: develop a weekly broadcast programme modelled on Country Calendar showing a different school, kura, or kāhui ako and see the stories unfold and the difference they are making—magic.

This is the fourth year that the Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards have been held. It is a way of showcasing and celebrating the best practice in our education system and, I hope, part of the way of changing the public conversation about education to a far more positive one. This is the second year of the Education Council, which is dedicated to growing and lifting the teaching profession. But a word of caution: no matter how much we invest to grow and develop the profession, they simply cannot and should not be expected to take up every latest demand. As I said earlier, the core business of schools is to cause learning to happen. It is not the job of schools to become the default for everything young people should learn. As Minister I was lobbied to have schools become social welfare hubs, health hubs, to provide financial literacy, sex education, and so on. Different schools can and do make decisions about how and what they operate. But schools are not our mothers and fathers; they are not our families or whānau. They cannot be everything to everybody and nor should they. Theirs is already a huge responsibility: to educate our kids.

I want to table for the House today, my calling card for this past term of Government—it is just sitting right there. It sets out the system changes that are under way. Helpfully, on the back are references to the relevant key papers. It provides a short summary and saves the House a fuller recitation. But small and colourful as this postcard is, it represents a lot of work by a lot of people.

I said that today was a day for thanks. I think we have a magnificent Public Service. I think it is the best in the world. It is probably one of the smallest, but certainly one that delivers above and beyond. Ahakoa he iti, he pounamu. Although small, it is of the quality of greenstone. Thanks to all those public servants who supported the work of my portfolios. The education portfolio is not the most popular, which I can testify to, but it is incredibly rewarding, and the work we did together has been some of the most satisfying of my professional life. I want to thank Peter Hughes, both for his leadership of the Ministry of Education and the education sector in Government, and for his full support of me and my work programme. He tells me with sincerity and good humour that he loved it—although not always in the moment. Thank you, Peter.

I want to thank Iona Holsted, first in her role as Chief Review Officer at the Education Review Office where she asked me what I was looking for and then with intelligence and conviction she over delivered—such a woman thing! Then as Secretary for Education she has gotten stuck in, bringing all her social policy background and grit to bear.

I want to thank Karen Poutasi, heading the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—do not worry, I am not going to go through every principal in the country as well—and her board in particular for the strategic vision they have been working toward. Take notice: assessment online, anyone, any time. In a truly student-centred education system, the choice of what and when a student gets assessed will have profound changes, not least of which in the manacle of timetabling that serves adults more than the students.

I just want to segue quickly to illustrate the powerful difference that the multiple vocational pathway choices young people have in our system today under our Government and how much more engaging this is for so many of them. I was visiting the Build a Bach project in New Plymouth and was talking to the students working on it. I asked one young guy what the key education thing he had learnt building the bach was. He said: “I know why I have to be able to read now” and, pointing to a stack of cans, he said: “cos that shit’s flammable, Miss. That means it burns.” But we need flexibility in timetabling to make more of this happen more easily for our students.

Peter, Iona, and Karen have been served by a leadership team of deputy secretaries, some of whom have gone on to serve elsewhere, whom I am proud to have worked with. Every one of them unstintingly worked to meet really high expectations, and I want to thank them all, and their teams. I trust I will be forgiven for naming just two people for special reasons, but who exemplify the commitment that all have shown. I want to acknowledge Katrina Casey and Coralanne Child, and their leadership in the Greater Christchurch, Selwyn, and Waimakariri education network over the past 5 years. Both had family or homes also affected by the earthquakes, and both led staff similarly affected. Day in and day out, at night, and on too many weekends they worked to restore, repair, redevelop, support, and sustain the people and the education system there, as many other public servants did also. They accompanied me when I met with every community at least once—many multiple times—to explain, to listen, to apologise, and to deliver.

I completely accept that we got some things wrong. But there was not a manual for those circumstances. We did not have 5 years to think about it. We did the best we could. Thank you both and all those who worked with you. I know that we are about halfway through the billion dollar programme to repair and rebuild and build 115 new schools, and already the network is fulfilling its promise in the continued growth in learning and achievement.

I want to thank the ministry folk who staffed my office over the years and the advisers in my office who have organised me, prepped me, planned for me and around me, who repaid the high trust I placed in them many times over. Thank you for looking out for me and after me: Kararaina Cribb, Otene Wharerau, Hiria Parata, Julie Ash, Florence Faumuinä, Charlotte Haycock, Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i, Ana Barbono, Nick Venter, Jasmine Higginson, and Brigitte Morten, with a special thanks for keeping me up on pop culture, trending Netflix series, fashion, latest diets, and Wellington on a Plate.

[Florence Faumuinä’s surname was originally spelt incorrectly; text corrected.]

Thanks too to Geoff Short and Matt Sanders for their fountain of knowledge, incredible networks, and good advice.

I quickly turn to the National Party. I want to acknowledge former president Michelle Boag, who first recruited me in 2001 and has been a steadfast supporter of mine ever since. I want to acknowledge Patricia Morrison, who inducted me into the ways of the party and could not have been a better mentor. To Peter Goodfellow and the board, our regional chairs, and those who are sitting behind me, which seems appropriate now because I have always felt the National Party behind me, and electorate committees, members, and volunteers who are the backbone of our Party—thank you all.

I have cause to be particularly grateful to those who have voted National, because they have put me in Parliament these past three terms of Government as a list member. Despite early mornings on Police Hill beside State Highway 1, hammering up hoardings, leafleting letter boxes, and generally throwing myself at the Mana electorate, I have not been able to uncouple it, first from Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, and now Kris Faafoi—both thoroughly lovely people with a peculiar political penchant. We have, however, won the party vote twice and are working very hard to keep that arrangement this September. It is here that I pay particular thanks to the Mana electorate team. A number of you are in the galleries today and you have my thanks for your support.

My special thanks go to my dear friend and her whānau, who since we set out on this waka have been with me and mine all the way. Pania Tyson-Nathan, you are amazing. Whatever I have needed, whenever I have needed it, you have been there; Evan Nathan for your long, suffering support and assistance; Enoka Mareikura who, press-ganged into my campaigns, became the handiest thing on a nail gun and the smoothest mover in human hoardings, to now being the father of a gorgeous wee girl; and Kaylim, who has practically grown up in the National Party, featuring in our pamphlets and singing for many of our suppers.

We have had fun and challenging times, but we have been dedicated and focused. I remember once when teams of us were out leafleting I got a call from Enoka saying: “Mum’s been bitten by a dog and we’re going to A & E.” I raced over to Kenepuru to see how she was. It was pretty bad. She had been stitched and had multiple shots and was on pain medication. Once I had established, however, that she had been sorted I was able to ask: “Um, did you manage to finish that street?”. Sorry Parn!

To the three Dames and two Sirs who in different ways and at different times have offered me wisdom, encouragement, poetry, prayer, and love—thank you Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi, Dame Jenny Shipley, Dame Karen Sewell, and Sir Brother Patrick Lynch. The other Sir I will come back to. An excerpt from the poem “From Landfall in Unknown Seas” by Allen Curnow became a touchstone for me: “Simply by sailing in a new direction you could enlarge the world.” Thank you, Karen.

We have a brilliant caucus, with an extremely able Cabinet, led by a good man. To the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Bill English, it has been a real honour to work with you and for you, to debate policy with you—some might say argue vociferously—to be prepped and on my mettle ready to make a Budget case when you were finance Minister. Thank you. I wish you every success in this election because apart from every other qualification you have for the job, you are the only Prime Minister who can shear a sheep, and where I come from, that counts.

To our Deputy Prime Minister, Paula Bennett, tēnā koe. You are a fierce and feisty warrior woman, whose hard work, strength, and sense of fun have been a model to us all. I salute you, and your mana wahine. Together, I think your leadership is awesome.

To the 2008ers, all 16 of us, it is been a blast. I could not have wished for a more diverse, smart, talented bunch of people to come into Parliament with.

Mr Speaker, to you and your colleagues, and all the people who make this place tick—my thanks. It is a veritable ecosystem that keeps the machinery going to ensure we have the active democracy we do. A special shout out to the VIP drivers, who we often spend more time with than our families—thank you. To the press gallery, my apologies. I just could not shake the conviction that if I just explained why, you would all say: “Oh, now we get it. OK, we won’t report it the way we were going to.” And, sorry, to all my press secretaries, I just couldn’t get the knack of the sound bite either—self-evidently.

To my family: what a roller coaster ride we have had. Thanks to all my brothers and sisters and partners for always, always being there. To my two sisters, fabulous educators themselves, who have stood silently behind me and proudly for me, Apryll and Nori, thank you. To my nieces and nephews, apart from being great campaign “volunteers”, thank you for your wraparound love of your two cousins.

To Wira, my pragmatic, phlegmatic, soldier protector. Thanks for looking after our girls, thanks for tweeting right back at them, thanks for this decade doing this stuff. And to our daughters Rakaitemania and Mihimaraea who have grown up in this funny kind of life that is politics, you make me so proud. In this time you have gone from early primary school to completing university—or within one semester of—from young girls to gorgeous young women. It has not been easy, as everyone in this House knows more than anyone, to have a parent in politics. But you have understood the call to public service, and you have been unflinching in your love and support of me. I came here wanting to make a difference for our country and for a better future. I know you have understood that and been proud of me and my work, but I also know how glad you are that I am making this valedictory statement today. I love you always and forever.

And, finally, I would like to thank the mums and dads, nannies and papas, the families, whānau, and aiga who care passionately about the well-being and education of their children and young people, and who wrote to me, met with me, attended education events, and who give up their time to coach, to support their schools, to be on the board, to encourage art and drama productions. Thank you all. Our children’s education is better for it.

I am speaking almost from where I started in this House—a full circle. I have loved my time here. I am humbled to have had the opportunity and honoured to be a participant in making our country better. And so to those who gave me advice, told me where to go, and how quickly I could get there—I am on my way. Hoi anō rā: “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi”—ngā manaakitanga ki a koutou katoa, kia ora tātou!

[And so “The old net is cast aside while the new one goes a-fishing”—cares upon you all, and an appreciation to us!]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.43 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Courts Matters Bill

Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

First Readings

Debate resumed.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, the House is resumed. Before the dinner break and before the valedictories we were doing the first readings of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill and the Courts Matters Bill. There being no further speakers, the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Bills referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Bills

Racing Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister for Racing): I move, That the Racing Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. This bill amends the Racing Act 2003. Racing in New Zealand has a long history. The industry includes around 5,000 breeders, 2,000 trainers, 27,000 owners, and the many staff employed by over 100 racing clubs. Racing is an important part of New Zealand’s economy, particularly in rural areas. The racing clubs and their facilities are often local focal points in a community, playing an important role beyond the races themselves.

Racing and betting have a long interwoven history. The Racing Board, which operates the TAB, is the only authorised bookmaker in New Zealand. The Racing Act requires the board to distribute the majority of its profits among the three racing codes. This was over $135 million for the 2016 financial year. The racing industry depends on this income from betting. It accounts for over 90 percent of the three codes’ revenue. However, not every bookmaker that enjoys profits from New Zealand betting makes a contribution.

Although the Racing Board is the only authorised bookmaker in this country, New Zealanders are free to bet with websites that are owned and operated by companies in other countries. Internet gambling is booming around the world, and many of these online companies take bets on New Zealand racing and sports from people in this country. At the moment these offshore operators do not have to pay anything back to New Zealand in recognition of these profits. They are able to bypass the requirements that apply to the Racing Board’s betting operations. In 2015 my predecessor, the Hon Nathan Guy, established the Offshore Racing and Sports Betting Working Group to investigate this issue.

The working group estimated that Australian corporate bookmakers turn over approximately $300 million on bets placed on New Zealand racing and $60 million on New Zealand sporting events. The working group also estimated that around $58 million of gross betting profit per year goes overseas from New Zealanders making bets with offshore bookmakers. The working group made a series of recommendations designed to address this problem. The Department of Internal Affairs consulted publicly on these recommendations in 2016 and the officials have worked closely with the New Zealand Racing Board and with other Government agencies to develop the working group’s recommendations into the Racing Amendment Bill.

At the heart of the bill are provisions that require offshore betting operators to pay to use New Zealand racing and sports information in their betting products and pay when they take New Zealand - based bets on any racing or sports events. These charges are called the information use charge and the consumption charge, respectively. With these charges New Zealand will be following a principle that is already well established in many countries around the world. As consumers purchase more products and services online, remote betting operators should pay their share. For example, many of the Australian states and territories have enacted race fields legislation, which is designed to ensure that bookmakers pay for the racing information they use even if they are based in another jurisdiction.

Although the Racing Amendment Bill follows these international precedents, it is legislation designed from the ground up, specifically to address New Zealand circumstances. Australia’s race-fields regime is successful because of the scale of the Australian domestic betting market. New Zealand’s approach must be more explicitly extra-territorial. This is not straightforward but we believe that the Racing Amendment Bill achieves the right balance to encourage compliance and enable enforcement. The bill names the Department of Internal Affairs as the body to administer these charges. The department may delegate some of its functions. Offshore betting operators will be required to seek the department’s permission and enter an agreement to use New Zealand racing and sports information. The bill establishes that these agreements will be enforceable under New Zealand law. There are a range of penalties that may be imposed on offshore operators who fail to comply with the charging provisions in the bill. One group of offshore bookmakers, the operators of TABs in Australia, currently pay to use New Zealand racing information through a commercial agreement with the Racing Board.

This bill will not affect this valuable contract and contains provisions to avoid double-charging. We believe that the principle of respecting and incentivising commercial solutions is an important one. The bill will therefore establish a process to obtain exemptions from the charges if new commercial deals can be struck in the future, as long as the return to New Zealand is as good as the payment of those charges. The bill also contains two measures to remove statutory restrictions that prevent the Racing Board from offering some of the same products as their offshore competitors. First, the bill will permit the Racing Board to continue to offer bets on the outcome of a race once that race has begun. This change will bring racing into line with sports where in-play betting is already permitted. Secondly, the Racing Board will be able to offer bets on a wider range of sports. At the moment the Racing Board may offer bets on sports only where the board has entered into an agreement with the governing national sporting organisation, or NSO. This can cause issues when there is no recognised NSO.

In these cases, the bill will allow the Racing Board to enter into a betting agreement with Sport New Zealand. Sport New Zealand will then distribute any betting commission payments for the benefit of sports organisations. The bill also presents an opportunity to update part of the Racing Act that is no longer fit for purpose. The Act contains a formula that sets out the payments the Racing Board must make to sports organisations from its sports betting turnover. Sports betting is one of the most dynamic parts of the wagering market, so setting this formula in primary legislation is too inflexible. The bill will instead allow for the formula to be set in regulations in the future. Overall, this bill supports the long-term viability of New Zealand racing and sports and will ensure that the offshore operators that enjoy profits from New Zealand betting pay their fair share. New Zealand racing has a very strong future ahead of it. We have a clean, green product based on excellence.

New Zealand racing represents the hours of work by volunteers and those involved in the industry, from drivers, trainers, owners, and breeders to those who actually bet on the product. We are fortunate to have a strong base to work from. The industry has long wanted this legislation, and it is now being delivered. We thank the industry for its patience during that time. But this is just one step in taking the industry forward. There are other things that can be done to build this industry so that it achieves its full potential.

Racing is part of the New Zealand story. It is part of our culture, our history, and our traditions. This is one way we can deliver some of that return back to that industry from the product that it delivers on a world stage. We now also have much more opportunity in that area to build a great industry that will deliver for all New Zealanders going forward, and we support this bill as a first step in that process. I commend this bill to the House.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to suspend for the extended sitting at the conclusion of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill or 10 p.m., whichever is earlier.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I think people from the racing industry will be watching the first reading of this piece of legislation, and it will be a bittersweet evening for them because they have been waiting for some time for this legislation. But I think the collective of the racing industry will be thanking God that this piece of legislation has found its way to this House altogether.

Just one question I would ask of the Minister is as to the select committee that he has chosen to send this piece of legislation to. Yes, this piece of legislation does involve the racing industry, but it really does go around to the administration of the revenue of the racing board and around racing and sporting codes. My understanding of that kind of legislation is that it usually goes to the Government Administration Committee, and I have to question why this is going to the Primary Production Committee. But I will come back to that at some stage later on.

There has been for 2 years now a degree of frustration in the racing industry because it has been waiting for this legislation to arrive. I do not want to put too much of the blame on the heels of the current Minister, the Hon David Bennett, because he has only just come on to it, and, to be fair, within months of him arriving this piece of legislation has arrived. But the industry has been waiting and waiting and waiting for this bill to make it to this House. The Minister referenced the working group report. I have got it in my hands here. It was delivered in October 2015.

This piece of legislation is absolutely vital to ensuring the strong future for the racing industry and sports codes that the Minister pointed out. But this legislation, if the Government gave it any priority, should have been through this House a lot earlier. Actually, if the Government had done its job properly, it would have been passed by now, giving the racing industry and the sporting codes the ability to get the revenue that this legislation promises to be able to get. The fact that it has taken so long for this piece of legislation to get here has not been lost on the racing industry. I know it is an industry that the current Government claims to be 100 percent behind most of the time, but when I am speaking to people in the industry—and in the sporting area—they are frustrated that this has not happened.

There are some concerns that we do have with the bill. There is quite a lot of regulation-making power within this bill. I will put the Minister out of his misery; we are going to support it, but we will use the select committee process to find out how exactly the Government and the racing board intend to use that regulation-making power. It does go to the day-to-day operation of the Racing Board—or the TAB as most people would know it, who might be sad and listening or watching tonight—and the kinds of products that it offers. That is one of the concerns that we have, as to what kinds of freedoms it might give the Racing Board or the TAB as to those powers.

I would like to pay tribute to the Racing Board under the leadership of Glenda Hughes and also John Allen, because they have kept the Labour Party right in touch during the whole process, before the working party started but also as the working party delivered its report, and through the very long and arduous process to get the legislation to this point today.

This legislation, as the Minister has said, will, hopefully, be able to get the revenue that the racing industry so desperately needs, and also the sporting industry. One question that we will have in the select committee is around the sporting codes that do not have a national body at the moment but might have sports betting being offered at the TAB as a result of this legislation. My discussions with the racing board after we got the first draft of this legislation were that if there was a sporting code that does not have a national body but there were bets on that code that would be offered at the TAB, then, hopefully, if they were looking to set up a national body, some of the money that came about from revenue from those bets could be put into a trust account to be able to assist that sporting code once it got up and running with a national body. If there were some smaller sports where lots of revenue came in through the TAB because of the bets that might be put on, I fear where that money would go. So that is one of the concerns that we have on this side of the House, which I think the select committee process will let us have a look at.

This piece of legislation, as the Minister said, will allow a ticket to be clipped of New Zealanders who are betting overseas, and will also charge a fee to overseas bookmakers who are taking bets on New Zealand - based events. They would essentially have to pay for the information that the Racing Board will offer them around odds, and also other information around races or sports events. The question that we had on this side of the House at the very outset of this process asks what kind of resource is going to be put into enforcement. That was one of the first concerns that I raised with the Racing Board when it came to meet us after this piece of legislation was introduced. I think the select committee process will be the place to do that.

But if there are sports bet operators overseas who flout the rules and still take bets on New Zealand races or sporting events and do not pay their fee that they should be under this legislation, my question to the Minister is: what kinds of powers will our Government have, will New Zealand have, to ensure that that revenue that should be coming to New Zealand actually gets to those racing codes, whether it be the trots, harness racing, thoroughbred, dogs, or one of the sporting codes that the revenue might be due to? How are we going to make sure that that money gets to those people so it is getting to the grassroots level? Enforcement, I think, is going to be one of the big issues that the select committee will look at.

I do not want to dwell too much longer because we are supporting this piece of legislation at first reading, but there are a number of issues, as I have set out. The Labour Party will be wanting answers from the Government to clarify its position that this piece of legislation will be effective. If it is and we do collect the kind of revenue that the Government says this piece of legislation can, then that will make a big difference to racing clubs around the country, to sporting clubs around the country, to make sure some of that revenue feeds down to the grassroots. That is what this should be.

The other sad thing about this legislation taking so long to get here—and this will be my final point—is that it has really stopped a big debate in the racing industry about where it should be heading, because of the fact that it has not had any certainty around guaranteed revenue in the industry. It has stopped conversations in small race clubs around the country that should have been had some time ago. I think that is sad because I think options that were available to some racing clubs around the country that owned courses that were difficult and expensive to maintain may now have gone because the revenue has not been collected. I think that is one of the very sad things that has happened as a result of this piece of legislation taking so long to get here.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Racing Amendment Bill, or, as the industry knows it as, the race fields legislation. And, as the previous speaker, Kris Faafoi, said, it has been long-awaited. There are some very good reasons for it being long-awaited, because when you are trying to extract money out of foreign entities—it is an issue that needs some significant care taken of it. It is also an issue that is going to be significantly challenging for this country to extract and to make sure it is managed in a manner that benefits all. That is the reason for it taking so long.

I will get on, in a minute or two, to the reasons it is going to the Primary Production Committee, but, as I said, it is a long-awaited piece of legislation. It has got the potential to return about $40 million to the New Zealand industry, all going well. Having spent a bit of time with the Racing Board some 3 or 4 years ago on a business exchange, I got to understand—even better than I already did understand it, having been involved in the industry for longer than I care to mention—some of the challenges that the industry was facing.

There is some $300 million or $400 million—or a bit more than that, actually—bet offshore annually on horse races in other countries. That, of course, is a significant challenge for us because we—the industry and the Government—do not get the income from that. So that is the reason for this legislation.

As someone who enjoys the occasional bet, I am often reminded of a quote by Shakespeare, which went: “O, for a horse with wings!”. And, of course, it is quite appropriate, because you do just about need wings to win in this business.

The horse industry, in its broader sense, employs some 18,000 to 20,000 people and turns over in excess of $1.8 billion. It is a massive industry. It is bigger than racing; it is bigger than gambling. And I want to touch on that, because I think that is where this legislation plays a very important role in expanding the opportunity for the horse industry in New Zealand to grow, to breed a whole lot more horses, and to capitalise on opportunities that are opening up in the world markets right now, particularly as bits of China open up to this industry. We have an opportunity, if we can breed enough horses, to provide some into that market.

So what has happened in the New Zealand racing industry and thoroughbred breeding industry—in fact, the horse industry in New Zealand—over the last few years is that we have seen a dramatic drop-off in the number of horses bred in this country. It needs legislation like this to encourage that industry to pick up and to grow that breeding capacity. Of course, that industry supplies horses to our Olympic equestrian teams and it supplies horses to numerous sports throughout the country—all coming out of one or the other of those horse industries. Of course, it also provides gambling and betting opportunities for sport, which is a hugely growing part of the business.

So I think that the real key for me in this piece of legislation—not only will it strengthen the racing industry, but it has got the capacity to significantly strengthen the breeding industry behind that business, both trotting horses and thoroughbreds. I think it is very exciting, because we certainly need to get that industry turned round and growing. The industry has got enormous potential for New Zealand. We are one of the four leading breeders of horses and providers of horses in the world, and it is very important that we continue to do that. The other interesting thing about breeding horses is that it has a much lesser environmental impact on both land and the environment than many other forms of farming. So it is important that we encourage this and get the industry going strongly again.

The bill has the potential, as I just said, to benefit the New Zealand economy in a major way. And I think it is really quite exciting that we have finally got this bit of legislation in a form that I hope can be implemented. That is the reason for the large amount of regulation that may potentially be needed to implement this legislation once it goes through the House, as it is complicated and it will take some time to extract that money out of those countries and those entities that receive that betting money.

I too want to acknowledge John Allen and the Racing Board, which has put a lot of work into this over the years. They have put a lot of work into what is a testing business—trying to restructure an industry that needs to come into, I guess, the modern era. Whether we like it or not, we do not have to travel. We can easily travel miles and miles now to the local racecourse. Of course, when we were—or when I was young; I cannot say “when we”—there were many, many racecourses in New Zealand. In my own area there were some seven different racecourses that make up what is now the Racing at Awapuni, Otaki and Trentham Combined Enterprise. So there is some rationalisation that has taken place in some parts of the country, which has worked really well. In other parts of the country it has not happened, and it is necessary that it does.

So in closing—and I have got another thing or two I want to say after this—I want to finish with another quote from Winston Churchill that says: “When you’re on a great horse, you have the best seat you’ll ever have.” And I want to remind a few in this House that, of course, some of us have better seats than that, and Rangitīkei is one of those.

Hon Jo Goodhew: Rangitata. Rangitata’s another one.

IAN McKELVIE: Rangitata, right. And the Rangitīkei, of course, is one of those. In fact, in the last 4 years, the Rangitīkei electorate has bred the winner of every major cup and race in New Zealand of every major jumping race in New Zealand. I cannot claim the same about the trotting industry, but we are very well-known for our race horses and our horse trainers. And, of course, just last week the eStar Winter Cup in Canterbury was won by another Rangitīkei horse.

So I think this is really quite exciting, not only for provincial New Zealand because, for those who have been lucky enough to have a horse good enough to run at Ellerslie and places like that—even to take one to Australia—it is very exciting. It is an industry that has got great potential for New Zealand.

I look forward to the progression of this bill through the House. I hope I am fortunate enough to be on the select committee that considers it in the next Parliament. I congratulate the Minister on his effort in getting this bit of legislation into the House, and I look forward to its progress. So thank you—very good.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I have got to agree with the member from Rangitīkei, Ian McKelvie, because that is my electorate as well—Te Tai Hauāuru, it is called—and we do a lot of great things throughout the electorate. I agree that we breed some excellent racehorses, so I want to agree with the member.

I agree, also, with Kris Faafoi, the Labour spokesperson on racing, on this Racing Amendment Bill. It is a bit of a concern that it has taken almost 2 years from the report of the offshore racing and sports betting working group to get the legislation into the House. And so we have had up to 2 years of missed opportunities, really, and of implementing this piece of legislation.

I read through the bill and the different documentation, and one thing it did provoke me to think about was the harm caused by gambling. It does kind of raise the issue around what our responsibility is, if we are taking funds from gamblers overseas, in terms of any harm caused to them—or do we leave that issue to overseas agencies? I thought I would raise it here because I think, also, in agreement with Kris Faafoi, that the Government Administration Committee, which has had considerable experience with three gambling amendment bills this term, could be thinking not only about gambling and the mechanics of gambling but also the harm caused by gambling. I think—no disrespect to the members of the Primary Production Committee—that there are aspects of this bill that would have been well considered by the Government Administration Committee.

I think what this bill sets out to do is something that needs to be done. Both our racing industry and our sports throughout New Zealand are impacted negatively by not doing this. I think there is a lot to gain through having this legislation. I look forward to interested parties making submissions on all parts of this bill at select committee.

I would be very interested, because it is a really wide sector when you include all sports, particularly those that do not have national organisations to take care of issues like this and that will need to build their infrastructure to get to the stage whereby bets that are taken all over the world on their particular sporting events can be well represented in terms of the collection of those funds and how they are eventually distributed.

I think there is a huge potential for growth in those particular sports. I am sure there are lots and lots of different sports out there that people would love to bet on. I was at a Māori sports event a couple of weeks ago where they were playing ki-o-rahi. I was sitting in the House and I wondered whether anyone across the world might be interested in betting on that. I think that particular sport, a Māori sport, was spread throughout the world during World War II, by our soldiers who went into Europe. That game survived in places like France and Italy, and now it is having a resurgence. If people wanted to bet on that, I wonder how the infrastructure of ki-o-rahi in New Zealand might be affected, because it is very much on a regional basis around towns and communities and marae that that is organised.

I look forward to hearing people making submissions, groups making submissions, on how it is going to affect their particular sports. I will be encouraging people to make submissions on this bill. As we say, we are supporting this bill, so I do not want to take up any more of the House’s time, except to say that we support this bill. Kia ora.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is actually a privilege to speak on this bill, and it will be the last contribution that I make in the House as well, as a member of Parliament. How fitting, given that the racing industry plays such a huge role in my history and in my upbringing. My grandfather Keith Barclay trained and drove racehorses in Gore, and my uncle Brent Barclay still trains and drives racehorses just out of Winton.

In recognition of the industry, the complexities, and, I think, the underrated nature of the sector, this bill provides an ability to correct an unfairness that has probably been in place for quite some time. I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Racing Board, the Minister for Racing, David Bennett, and former Minister for Racing Nathan Guy for the work they have done in bringing the sector together and developing this piece of legislation that aims at correcting an inequity around offshore betting.

When John Allen came and met with Barbara Kuriger and me, probably about 6 to 8 months ago, I had not quite appreciated the level of leakage that our sector experiences to offshore betting, particularly to Australia. Through the work that the Racing Board, under John Allen, and the board members have done, they have estimated that around $58 million of gross betting profit for a year goes overseas, from New Zealanders making bets with offshore bookmakers.

The sector is incredibly important to regional New Zealand. There would not be an electorate MP here with a provincial or a rural base who does not have a key aspect of their industry being the racing industry. I know from speaking to my own family, but also to other participants in the racing industry across my electorate, that this correction is something that they are very much in appreciation of.

I just wanted to acknowledge the hard work of all who have been involved. I do not think we can underestimate for one minute the level of complexity and competition—as you will know, Mr Speaker, from your former primary industry roles—that is held across that particular sector. With almost unanimous support, I suspect, from the sector itself for this bill to go through, it comes at quite a timely time. I just wanted to acknowledge the hard work of the Racing Board, the industry participants, the Minister, and the former Minister. It is great to be able to speak on the first reading of this bill.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. I rise to address the Racing Amendment Bill. The Green Party recognises there are benefits to the racing industry from this bill. We have seen estimates that this bill and the extension of a levy on betting agencies would raise around $1.6 billion annually after a period of time—[Interruption] Sorry, $16 million after a period of time. Thank you. The industry itself accounts for about $1.6 billion a year and 17,000 jobs. It would be a good bill if it doubled the industry size.

Hon Amy Adams: And you guys want to be on the Treasury benches. That’s a worry.

BARRY COATES: Yeah, thank you. The legislation would support offshore operators paying their fair share for racing in New Zealand. We think it is a good thing that it extends oversight to offshore operators. We understand that they are largely the bigger betting agencies that account for most of the anticipated revenue, like William Hill and Ladbrokes and others. We also understand they are based primarily in the Northern Territory, in Australia, chasing a low tax regime. We recognise that the levy would apply only to bookies over $60,000 of revenue.

With all that, we think that there are some benefits for the racing industry from this bill. We are, however, concerned about two aspects. I might say, just by way of preface, that the Green Party is acutely aware of gambling harm. We are acutely aware of the number of problem gamblers in this country and of the good work undertaken by agencies like the Problem Gambling Foundation, the Salvation Army, and others.

The two aspects that we are particularly worried about have been highlighted in submissions by the Problem Gambling Foundation and by the Salvation Army. The first of these concerns live betting during racing and sports. Studies have shown that live betting can generate substantially higher forms of problem gambling compared with pre-race betting. That is because it is a form of continuous gambling that is characterised by a very short time between placing a bet and the outcome. It creates a cycle where people react to the emotions of placing bets, and we think that it creates problems in terms of people being able to consider adequately the impact of their action. This research, I think, has been well documented in the Problem Gambling Foundation’s submission.

The second aspect that concerns us is the proposal that this may be a way to extend gambling into other sports than are currently covered. We do not think that there are enough controls or that there has been enough discussion around the potential for the problems that that may cause. We contrast it with the controls over class 4 gambling—pokie machines in particular—where, at the community level, there is a sinking-lid policy.

To us, the problem with this bill is that it opens up these two areas to, potentially, a significant expansion of gambling. We are concerned that this is, essentially, almost a Trojan Horse. On the one hand, we are having a quite sensible introduction of levies on overseas betting agencies, and we have no problem with that. The problem is the other aspects of the bill that are included in this legislation. Because of our concerns in those two areas, because of the fact that this bill might usher in higher problems in gambling and an increase in gambling harm, the Green Party finds it impossible to support this bill. Therefore, we regret to say that we oppose this bill. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise to be a breath of fresh air after the contribution made by the Greens. I have to say, it was a little bit of doom and gloom that might have made everybody feel a little bit depressed in the House and, certainly, back home. Sorry about that, Mr Coates, but, I have to say, you are on your own on that one.

Let me give you some positives in the racing industry, because it sounds not so positive when you listen to the Greens. The racing industry involves about 52,000-plus people every year. Now, a lot of those people are volunteers. Community groups use the racing industry to have their events, to house community engagements, etc. It employs over 17,000 people and contributes over $1.6 billion towards our economy. We have got over a thousand race meetings, with over a million people a year—families and communities—going along to those racing events, to be part of the community. I do not want to coin this phrase, because it is certainly not mine, but it is part of our culture: rugby, racing, and beer. I am not suggesting that is it for everybody, but I am telling you that for a lot of people, rugby, racing, and beer make up a lot big part of it.

I have to say that this industry is in crisis. This industry has been in crisis for 9 years, and I am not pointing the bone across the House at my dear friend Mr Bennett, because he has been in the job for only 3 months. You know that any opportunity I would possibly get to chastise him, I would certainly take, but today is not one of those opportunities.

What we do have to look at is the 9 long years that we have been waiting for real, substantial change in the racing industry, which—full stop—has not come. We have seen four Ministers for Racing in that time: John Carter, Craig Foss—albeit he was there for only 6 months, and he had his valedictory speech tonight—6 years with Nathan Guy at the helm, and now for the last 3 months we have Dave Bennett, who has been given a hospital pass, because nobody wants to be carrying this baby on the pre-penultimate day of the 51st Parliament, which is today. It is the pre-penultimate day. The biggest disgrace, I have to say, about Mr Bennett is that he did not fight hard enough to get this bill through this House under urgency, because this is absolutely what the industry needs.

If we go back to between 2005—

Hon David Bennett: We can—we can. Do it tonight. Let’s do it tonight.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: You bring it on. Mate, you know we want this bill through, because this is what the racing industry needs. It is only one of the things that this racing industry needs. It is absolutely in the weeds, and it is in the weeds because of the lack of any direction or drive or motivation from the Ministers whom we have had before this Minister, to do something about it. They have lain idle, sat on their hands—they have been asleep at the wheel.

Now it is time for change. This should be through in urgency. The last time that this country saw some real, substantial change was between 2005 and 2008. The Minister for Racing then was of course the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and do you know what? He did not say he was going to do it. He did not go around and boast that he was going to fix the industry. He did not make any mad claims that this is something that needs doing. He just got in there quietly, he tipped the industry upside down, and he created opportunities for what I would call—and many people around this country would call—the poster child for added-value exports.

When you talk about the $1.6 billion industry, the racing industry, with huge amounts of scope and opportunity to grow and develop it, all it needs is the right Government support to get in behind it. I can tell you right now, we will have this mess cleaned straight up after this election if we get the opportunity to be in power and to make those changes that are required. We have done it before, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters will make sure that we do it again.

The interesting thing that we have got is that this is not the only problem with the racing industry. There are a number of problems that need fixing, this being just one of them, and one that Mr Ian McKelvie has said is complicated. He tried to justify in the House just earlier why it has taken so long to actually get this piece of legislation in front of this House, like we are seeing here tonight. In fact, it has taken 9 years, despite having the offshore racing and sports betting working group, which is the only thing that Nathan Guy can take credit for doing in the 6 years of his leadership in this portfolio. Mr McKelvie said this: “It’s complicated when it comes to extracting money from overseas.”

Well, it is not complicated when you largely copy and paste legislation that they already have in place in Australia, and we, as the law-abiding, moralistic country that we are, are already paying levies to the Australian TABs under similar legislation. So how can he sit here in this House and justify the 9 years that it has taken for this legislation to get here, while they are sitting idle on their hands? In actual fact, they have already got it across the Tasman. We are already paying those fees.

When you talk about the Greens being worried about harm minimisation—of course, we have heard it from Labour as well. Harm minimisation is the latest buzzword, of course, because if you look at the harm of gambling, we are actually in a minimal state right now. Harm minimisation—we are declining the harm with regard to gambling. It has actually got infrastructure and wraparound services to ensure that we get it. This bill, however, enables more money to be put into the industry to create a better infrastructure of wraparound services for harm minimisation. So to use that as your argument to not support this bill is absolute lunacy, which we would expect, I dare have to say.

The $58 million that New Zealanders are currently spending online with our Australian brethren, within their racing organisations, is money and opportunity lost that New Zealand should be getting. We have over $300 million worth of offshore bets that we should actually be clipping the ticket on. The New Zealand Racing Board is in a particularly bad state. It needs a serious shake-up, and some work needs to be done there. Why it has taken this long to get this legislation here begs belief. We are saying right now that the Aussies really had this right a number of years ago. They approached New Zealand. We said: “That makes sense. We’ll absolutely ensure that we pay our fair share to your bookmakers and your online gamblers. We would just expect that to be reciprocated.” It does not take 9 years. There is no excuse for the time that it has taken to get there.

This industry is full of passionate people, from the horse trainers, the vets, those who get up at 5 o’clock in the morning to shovel a whole lot of you-know-what and to move it around—it is a passion for the industry. It is a lifestyle, and, in many cases, it is a lifestyle that goes generations deep. When we walked around the Karaka sales earlier on this year, the comment that I cannot lambast enough is that it is an industry that is in crisis. They feel like they are not being heard, and they feel like there is no solution coming forth. This is very, very late in the piece. Like I said, it should be under urgency. Without these poster-child industries in our country, which New Zealand First talks about—the poster child of added-value exports—we are seriously going to be in a dire situation.

It is very interesting to see the number of mares, the high-quality mares that even Mr McKelvie spoke about—we are one of the top five countries in the world that is renowned for racing, yet we are selling off so much of our quality bloodstock to keep the industry afloat in this country. Our mares, our fillies—they need to be retained in this country. It needs to be profitable. They need the support. New Zealand First is behind them. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has made it very, very clear in the past about what he will do, and we will make sure that that happens again come 23 September when we are putting together a Government.

To wrap things up, I cannot lambast that enough. I just want to let you know, with regard to the many families around New Zealand that are involved in racing, and those who are not necessarily involved in racing—but there is a resurgence in families going to the races on a Saturday afternoon or on a particular day for an event; Boxing Day races, and the like. My wife and I, and my family, we go along regularly to the races to participate. In fact, a few years ago we bought ourselves a racehorse, which was a great endless pit that we poured money into, but there is nothing quite like standing there in your box, watching your horse come thundering down the finish line in seventh position—and all that money you have invested. But, you know what, it is going to a good cause.

Just in finishing, another area that needs some attention is the ambiguity around the lack of direction that the IRD and Treasury have when it comes to assisting racing. It is very, very misleading. They have twisted some of these rules and regulations, which is making it hard for the racing industry to look at. These are some of the other issues, along with the minimum State money that needs to be implemented into the racing industry. This is a step in the right direction. It should be under urgency, and it should have been done in this term of the Government, along with a whole raft of other ideas that need to be implemented. Just see our New Zealand First racing policy to get some more ideas. You might want to check it out also, Minister. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Well, Mr Mitchell, you got up and you talked about being a breath of fresh air and, for probably about the first 30 seconds of your of speech, I thought you were a breath of fresh air. And then you started breathing fire at Minister Bennett. Minister Bennett has been a good Minister. He has taken—

Clayton Mitchell: No, I didn’t. That’s not true. That’s not true. I was giving him compliments. I was complimenting him.

BARBARA KURIGER: Yes, you did. He has taken on this portfolio and he has really taken the bull by the horns—to use an expression—or the horse by the reins, and he is really making a difference to this industry.

Look, I also want to mention the Racing Board. It has made a huge effort in terms of working with all of the parties across this House to make sure that we all understand this piece of legislation and what is going on. There is a huge amount of leakage and it is a shame, because we have got a fantastic racing industry in this country. We have got a fantastic breeding industry, but the problem is, those horses will get sold overseas if we cannot actually bring the money into this country to give them the opportunity to race those horses.

And you were right, Mr Mitchell, about the rugby, racing, and beer, because I have got some really good studs in my electorate: Te Akau Stud, Breckon Farms, and Curraghmore, just to name a few. You know, it really is about rugby, racing, and beer, because I have got some good craft beer places that are just taking off as well, and we are the home of the Chiefs, so you really cannot beat that. That is total rugby, racing, and beer.

So look, I just want to commend the racing industry. It has put a lot of effort into its breeding, and I look forward to it doing really well. I had the opportunity, apart from horses, to go and have a look at the greyhounds recently as well, and they run pretty fast for little dogs. The other thing that I did while was I was there is that I took the opportunity to go and see where they are rehousing the greyhounds that are no longer useful for racing because they are not fast enough. I have to commend the racing industry and those who are re-homing those greyhounds, because they are doing some incredibly good work there in Levin.

I did want to mention the contribution by Barry Coates about the problem gambling thing. Look, we could strangle our own racing industry by talking about problem gambling, and, yes, for some people it is a problem, and I do not want to minimise it for those who have a gambling problem. But, having said that, people can go on the internet and gamble any time they like. The money can go overseas now, and the biggest problem is—the reason why we are enacting this legislation is so that we can bring some of that money back into the country. I have to say that our industries have been pretty good at supporting those with problem gambling as well.

So with that, that is a short contribution, but I look forward to this progressing through the House, and I stand here and proudly speak in support of this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I guess it is an honour to speak—it might be my last speech in this particular Parliament, and on a racing bill, which I guess, in the scheme of things, probably does not rate very highly in terms of the issues that New Zealand faces. I have been a Minister. I can say to the Minister in the seat there now, David Bennett, that he will be lucky if he makes it to the election in that position, because the industry has—and, I have to say, with the exception of Minister Guy—a reputation for getting rid of chairs of the board and of Ministers. It is a tough industry. What we did in Government, of course, was open the door for sports betting and work with the industry on new opportunities.

But it was clear at that time that without some fresh thinking, the industry was going to face continual decline. That is indeed what has happened. Labour supports this change, because it is just fair. It just means that we clip the ticket for what is a growing offshore betting element, and some of that money should stay here, because there are a lot of people across the racing industry who invest in the product to be bet on by you all—to be profited from by offshore bookmakers.

To come back to the core issue—and it was brought home to me when that international sporting team, the Parliamentary Rugby Team, did visit Palermo, which is probably one of the pre-eminent racecourses in South America, in Argentina. It was an impressive facility but it was vacant, like many, many racecourses in New Zealand. There were people there, but they were all underground, playing 4,000 poker machines that provided the revenue to keep the racing industry on top of the ground going. Now, that is not a sustainable model, and what we have in New Zealand is a similar situation, that the racing industry does have fewer Kiwis—and we go back to the “rugby, racing, and beer”, which was the old culture, one that is shifting, and racing is missing out.

I know that after I was moved on from my portfolio, another gentleman galloped in on his white horse and promised to save the industry. Mr Peters did indeed offer some good benefits—that is, he gave the industry a $35 million tax break. That was appreciated at the time, and a couple of other tweaks around breeding were appreciated by the racing industry. But it has not dealt with the core issue. Until the industry deals with that—and it is not easy—then it is going to continue to struggle. I thought I was making some progress, and, of course, they turned a tide, as they do, and any Minister who challenges the current paradigm, they turn. Anyone chairing the TAB or the Racing Board—as it was; it is all now one—if anyone dares to challenge the status quo, then they get dealt to. It is not the way that the industry has to approach the future. Disruption and challenges are occurring across all industries and all sporting activities in the world, and the racing industry has to find the core that attracts people to it so that it can retain them and their interest in it.

There are some amazing race meetings around the country at small racing clubs. There might be only one or two events a year, but lots of people go and have a great time and appreciate the efforts of all those people in the racing clubs to get those meetings together. But for a long time there has been a view in Wellington, and with the central bureaucracy, that you should close all of those down and centralise, and cut off the rural support base for the racing industry, because the core of the betting—the core of the gambling and attendances—is often around the cities, which is true and logical. But if you chop off that heritage component and the small racing clubs, does that help the industry grow? I say no.

So what they need to do is get into technology. I believe you have got to put cameras in the event, as happened with motor racing, as happens with cricket, and as happens with rugby even, when you have got a camera on the ref—although I do not know whether that adds anything or not in that particular case. But the point is that the public now demands virtual reality or to be part of the action. That is one avenue, I think, that the racing industry has toyed with. It does do some of this, but it has actually got to jump into it.

I will not give them too many more hints. I am sure there will be a consultant out there somewhere who might want to charge them for all that wisdom. It is a great industry, and I accept the wisdom of the member for Rangitīkei, who knows horses inside and out—he has ridden a few of them—that we do have a wonderful bloodstock industry in this country, but we must have more than just their objectives. We must have a public that wants to participate to grow the industry. Otherwise, the money that was given by Minister Peters and the efforts made by all the Ministers—including this extra revenue stream here—will amount to nowt over time.

I would like to see a racing industry because it is part of our heritage, and I would like to see it prosper, but without change, that is not going to happen. The Minister probably will not be in the job long enough to make any significant change, but I applaud his efforts to bring this legislation into the House finally. The industry has been waiting for it while Minister Guy sat on his hands. Minister Bennett has brought this into the House. Well done, and I am sure that we can pass this under the new Labour-led Government. We will happy to progress this, but we will be saying to the industry that there is more needed than this to give a prosperous long-term racing industry. Thank you.

Eugenie Sage: Mr Speaker.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Sorry about that, Eugenie. It is great to speak on this bill. Also, I would have to say congratulations to the Hon David Bennett. I think he has done a good job. He has been in the job just a few days and he has got this bill before the House. He is a man of action, and I think the racing industry will be very pleased with the performance of the new Minister. So it is fantastic.

I grew up in mid-Canterbury, near Methven. There is a heck of a lot of harness racing down there; not much in the way of thoroughbreds, but there are some. But the racing industry, while it has been alluded to before as being part of our culture, which I think is very much the case, I think the fact is that life has moved on and there are a lot of disruptive technologies in the world, and, actually, the racing industry is not immune from that. Overseas betting is taking a lot of the much-needed revenue out of the racing industry, and this legislation is vital, to allow that revenue stream to be accessed by the industry to give it the much-needed ability to keep pace with its stakes. The stakes are the lifeblood of the racing industry. If it cannot get good returns for the owners, the trainers, and the drivers, then the bloodstock industry will not thrive.

Actually, the bloodstock industry is the future of the racing industry in New Zealand. It is a huge opportunity for us in exports. It is an industry that gives a heck of a lot of people a lot of pleasure, and I would have to say—growing up, as I said, around Methven—the racing-industry people are great people, salt of the earth people. They soon tell you if you are going wrong, and they are not shy to point out exactly where. So I think this bill is a great bill. I think this disruption—really, it is adapt or die as an industry. And I think this bill is going a long way to ensuring that the industry has the power to adapt. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am taking just a short call for the Green Party on the Racing Amendment Bill. Certainly, it makes a great deal of sense to ensure that some of the $300 million that New Zealanders spend each year through overseas bookmakers is directed back to assist the promotion of racing and sports in New Zealand. So that part of the bill is certainly something we can support. But we do, as Mr Coates alluded to, have difficulties with the working party on offshore racing and sports betting. It did not include anybody from the health sector or anyone who has an insight into the issues of gambling harm and problem gambling.

We think that that failure has led to the legislation not being based sufficiently on the recognition of problem gambling and gambling harm. This is because there are provisions in this bill that remove the prohibition on the TAB taking bets during a race. The research shows that, where you have got live betting happening, it is much more likely to be a prediction of problem gambling. And there is also a proposal in the bill to remove the restriction that requires the TAB to allow bets only on sports that are represented by national sports organisations. So that, potentially, could lead to betting being allowed on a greater range of sports, and it is also potentially going to allow betting on novelty events. All these provisions increase the opportunity for more gambling and, potentially, the risks for people who have issues with gambling.

We support the provisions around putting money back into the industry from those overseas bookmakers. The bookmakers will have to get permission from the Department of Internal Affairs. They have got to get the agreement of the national sporting organisation if they are going to use any of the information that those organisations provide. So there are some good things in the bill. Certainly some of the revenue that is generated can be used to minimise gambling harm, but it is on the loosening up of the ability to gamble that we hope there will be significant submissions in select committee and the ability to amend the bill to recognise the harm that gambling can do.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Racing Amendment 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 12

Green Party 12.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 6 July.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): When we were last debating the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill, the next call was to go to the Labour Party.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a call in support of this legislation, the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill, at first reading. I thank the Government for bringing this bill to the House. It attempts to plug a hole in our law, which is that there is currently no law governing the conduct of New Zealanders when it comes to the sale or the brokering of sale of certain weapons to overseas jurisdictions or people, even where those exports or those sales or the brokering of those sales are illegitimate.

The bill attempts to do this by introducing a requirement that anyone who is involved in this sort of trade has to be registered, and then it has various categories of goods that are specified as being controlled as being strategic goods. These are listed in a list of goods and classes of goods the exportation of which are going to be prohibited under section 56 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 because they have or may have strategic use, and strategic use is defined in the Act.

It is quite a broad Act. It does not cover just the seller; it covers anyone who is involved in brokering activity, and that means those who arrange or facilitate or negotiate the transaction involving the international transfer of weapons or related items. It includes people who act as agents and includes people who do not just acquire those weapons in New Zealand but who acquire or store weapons in a place outside of New Zealand for the purpose of transferring those weapons to a person also outside New Zealand.

It takes some care to exclude ancillary services such as administrative services, customs broking, and financial services, so that those people do not have to be part of the registration system.

It appears a sensible piece of legislation. Some of the questions that we may have at select committee will include whether the classification of what is covered by this is appropriate. For example, when it talks about military end use it is including incorporation into military items that would fall within that specified category that I have already mentioned and, also, use, production, or testing of equipment and components for the development, production, or maintenance of military items, and unfinished products for the production of military items.

The legislation, I am sure, will be part of international efforts to try to limit the risk of movement of weapons to illegitimate end-users—that is what the explanatory note says—or undesirable destinations. As I said previously, anyone who wishes to engage in this brokering activity or sales activity has to register with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and then for each activity that they are carrying out that may be legitimate, they have to obtain a permit. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade can only grant that permit if they are satisfied that the activity is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations and would not prejudice the security, defence, or international relations of New Zealand.

It is slightly unusual in that this applies to activities outside of New Zealand even if they are not initiated within New Zealand, so it applies to the conduct of New Zealanders when they are in overseas countries rather than just in New Zealand. I am sure the select committee will want to have a look at that and how that fits within international law and New Zealand law.

I think that is probably all I need to say at this stage. We are supporting this to first reading and look forward to the report of the select committee.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call this evening on the first reading of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill, and my contribution is going to continue in a similar vein to that of my colleague David Parker, who, essentially, talked to the rationale. It is very good to see that this already has the support of the Labour Opposition members, and I wait to hear their contributions. I see a thumbs up from my friend and colleague Barry Coates, which suggests that it could well be a reasonably uniformly supported piece of legislation, which would be nice.

The key purpose of this bill is to establish a regime to regulate the brokering of arms and military equipment by New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities. As we have already heard, part of the importance of creating a regulatory regime like this in New Zealand is to ensure that arms and military equipment do not end up in the wrong hands. There is no particular suggestion that this is a huge pressure in a New Zealand context, but it is important that we play our part to ensure that, as signatories to the Arms Trade Treaty, we are seen to be doing as much as we can do in this space. We have had a sort of voluntary approach to date, and it is the Government’s view that that now needs to be augmented with a fleshed-out and enabled regulatory regime.

In terms of the brokering itself, brokering is where arms are transferred from one foreign country to another, and it is widely recognised, as we have heard already this evening, that the brokering of conventional arms can assist the movement of arms and military equipment to illegitimate users or undesirable locations. One of those locations that has had quite a lot of proven arms movement, which has created an enormous amount of death of destruction, is Iraq and Syria.

Both David Parker and I, and the Minister of Defence, Mark Mitchell, were up in that region only a couple of months ago and, firstly, saw the tremendous work that our New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen are doing up there as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, playing our part in terms of ensuring that the Iraqis are well trained in terms of taking the fight to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Whilst I cannot be sure that arms had been illegally obtained, when you are up in that part of the world and you go through, as we did, the miles and miles of land that is within the Camp Taji set-up, and you see the equipment that has been used over the various Gulf wars stretching out in front of you as far as the eye can see, you certainly do get a small glimpse—I got a small glimpse—of the scale of this problem, the scale of, essentially, the amount of military hardware that is used in these conflict zones, and the very last thing you want is to have military hardware in that space that has turned up there illegally. So this is New Zealand’s small, but I think quite meaningful, effort to ensure that we and our New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses are following the appropriate approach.

In terms of the key provisions of this bill, no doubt we will explore these in great detail, those of us who are privileged enough to return to the 52nd Parliament and, indeed, be part of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when it returns. We will step through the key provisions. As a highlight, the provisions outline the purpose of the bill, describing the nature of brokering in quite detailed terms; they describe the weapons and related items that this bill covers, specifically arms, military equipment, and civilian goods; and they talk around the conditions that can be placed on a registered broker and the permit system that underpins that, and also the conditions in terms of the importance of alignment with international obligation.

Of course if you have a regulatory regime that sets up some requirements for the permit holders, there also need to be consequences if there are breaches. So there is a specific clause, clause 10, which talks through, in again pretty significant detail, the offence provisions. They are actually quite significant. The penalty for the offence, in the case of the individual is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $100,000—that is for an individual—and for a company, larger than that.

I think you can see that this is a framework that has been well considered. We are, obviously, applying international best practice. This is not a new model. We are taking what applies in other countries that have signed this arms treaty and already have this framework in place, and we are applying the New Zealand version of it. I look forward to the debate and discussion that will happen in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee if I am back and have involvement in that committee. I am sure the legislation will be a useful addition to demonstrating New Zealand’s commitment to this very important cause. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. I think that as New Zealanders we all feel proud that we like to be responsible global citizens and that we are good global citizens. There are lots of examples of how we do that. This particular bill is one that will address an issue and fix a situation where there is not so much regulation, and New Zealand entities and New Zealanders were able to carry out the role as broker for the sale of weapons, without too much regulation. So it is a good idea that we enhance our international reputation as good global citizens by enacting this bill into legislation.

I look forward to seeing submissions from different groups that are interested in this type of legislation. I would well imagine that the very strong peace movement within New Zealand would make submissions on a bill like this. I expect that those who are interested in disarmament—and as we all celebrated 30 years of nuclear-free New Zealand this year, I would say that a number of the people who have supported that legislation over many years will be interested in this particular bill.

I think it does our reputation no harm at all to enact a piece of legislation like this. Of course we need regulation. Of course we need to be thinking about the end-user of such products, how they are used in the world, and the harm that is caused by the use of weapons and related items. That is the kind of thing that I am most interested in, rather than the purpose that these weapons are manufactured for, which is pretty much for taking people’s lives. That would probably be done under the guise of protection more than their actual use, but I think we ought to be mindful that that is the purpose of these weapons. It is to take people’s lives, and we should always be conscious of that matter as a Parliament.

I think it is important that that voice is heard within the process of this Parliament, and so I highly recommend to the select committee that it take note of those submissions. All submissions are from interested parties, and I support my colleague David Parker on his contribution. We will be supporting this bill to select committee, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. It is quite an unusual thing. I take on board what was said before, which was that the purpose of these weapons is actually to kill people, but that is the ultimate end use, for which we hope they will never have to be used. The deterrent factor in weapons is not to be undervalued. Of course, I guess we have not a great example, I suppose, but from a deterrence point of view there are the nuclear weapons—vast arsenals of them—which have not been utilised at all since the Second World War. So deterrence does work, and I think that we have to be aware that it is a big, bad world out there, and we need to be a part of it.

Currently, we are operating under a voluntary regime, which is the registration scheme for our New Zealand - based brokers, but it has no legislative controls to actually regulate that process. We have to do that not only from a good process point of view but because we are part of the wider world and our allies and our trading partners expect better of us than that. So we do need to get our legislation up to ensure that these things are controlled in the manner that they would expect and that we, indeed, would expect as good global citizens. So I think it is a great step forward for us.

It is interesting in that it not only covers military equipment but it also covers civilian goods that may have a military end use, which are dual-use goods. If I have the privilege of serving the good people of Kaikōura in the next term and also have the other privilege of serving on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I would like to find out a lot more detail about some of the terms that are used in the bill in some of the clauses that were, in fact, alluded to by my colleague Todd Muller. I think those things will really be of great interest to us all. It is actually incumbent on us that we do a really good job of this, because it is so vital with these things that not only do we do the job well but we are seen to be doing it well. New Zealand entities will have to register with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I think it is important that we get all those processes right. I am sure that is the right person.

All the other requirements in the bill—are they the right ones? Until we hear some evidence to back all of that up and we hear the pros and cons—which is really the working, day-to-day tools of the select committees in Parliament—we will make sure this bill is in a really good space. So, with that, I commend it to the House.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Control Bill, and the pleasure is not only because the Green Party fully supports this bill but, for me, this is the culmination of actually having spent 20 years on this particular issue. In the mid-1990s I worked with other organisations on the forerunner of arms control around this, which was the European Union code of conduct, at a time when I was living overseas. That provided for basic controls over small arms, which were then, and are now, flooding into some of the poorest and most conflict-ridden parts of the world, where they cause unimaginable suffering and terror. The scale of small arms going into troubled parts of the world is absolutely staggering, and it is to the shame of Security Council members that, actually, most of the sales of small arms around the world come from the five permanent members of the Security Council.

This legislation follows on from the Arms Trade Treaty, and the Arms Trade Treaty was exceedingly important. It was championed by Oscar Arias, the former President of Costa Rica. New Zealand did not play a leading role in the negotiations, but it was amongst the first 50 States to ratify and, importantly, New Zealand did provide model law to Pacific Island countries, which enabled Pacific Island countries to quickly sign and ratify this agreement, which they had been strongly behind. Around that time there had been cases of small arms being trafficked through the Pacific without the understanding of Governments.

This issue of small arms became particularly relevant in New Zealand when we were subject to brokering an arms deal. A shell company—a company that was a company in name only—was formed to traffic arms between North Korea and Iran. It may seem rather bizarre, and, in fact, it took investigators a very long time to establish that the company involved was actually a New Zealand company. It was registered in Auckland. A labyrinth of thousands of Auckland-based companies were sifted through, and eventually they came to the address of 369 Queen Street, where this company was based.

This New Zealand company brokered 35 tonnes of weapons going between North Korea and Iran, and, really, that case provides an absolutely impeccable reason as to why this bill is urgently required. In a way, it is a shame that it has taken since that case happened in 2009 until now to have this legislation come through, because the Arms Trade Treaty, which was ratified in 2014, had actually talked about prohibitions on the brokering of small arms. So, certainly, it is about time this legislation came to Parliament.

In that particular case, the 35 tonnes of weapons included destructive weapons such as surface-to-air missiles, explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades, and, by the way, this weapons shipment was entirely in contravention of the UN arms embargo at the time. The shipment was intercepted in Thailand. Eventually, the director of the company was traced back and found to be a 28-year-old fast-food manager based in Auckland who had no idea what the company was that he was registered as a director of.

The registration system that led to the formation of this shell company, and many thousands of others, was initially defended by the Government, but subsequently—thankfully—there has been legislation passed to tighten up on shell companies. However, it took until the Panama Papers and their revelations to actually take the next stage in tightening up the regulations. I would say that this was a period of this Government when there was an extraordinary number of shady and crime-ridden syndicates operating through New Zealand shell companies. Thankfully, some of that has been tightened up, and recently we saw, finally, after a very, very long time, money-laundering provisions passed in this House, as well. It has taken far too long for this legislation to come through.

I pay tribute to the organisations that have worked on these brokering issues for a very, very long time. The organisation that I headed for 10 years, Oxfam New Zealand, was one of those that pressed firstly for the Arms Trade Treaty and also for the coverage of the brokering activities under this legislation. I commend its work and the work of many other organisations that have been working in a dedicated way for a long time to see this legislation finally come before the House.

There are two aspects of this legislation that we really want to see strengthened, and the first of those is that the register is able to be made public. There are provisions in the legislation that suggest that perhaps it will not be made public. From the Green Party’s perspective, we need transparency around this register. It does need to be made public. There may, of course, be some details that should remain commercially confidential, but we think that the onus should be on a public register and full transparency in that register, as with, we should say, other registers, such as the foreign trusts register, which is still not public, even after the Panama Papers revelations.

The second major thing that we would like to see introduced at the select committee is the extension of this bill from brokering to also cover the activity of mercenaries. Mercenaries are also an important element in destabilising legitimate Governments, and are increasingly a mechanism of choice for those who would foment illegal revolutions in different countries. We saw that when the Papua New Guinean (PNG) Government reacted to the fiasco in Bougainville, which had descended into a civil war over a goldmine. The PNG Government hired a British mercenary called Sandline International to come in and basically kill lots of people in Bougainville. Thankfully, there was a division within the Government and the mercenaries were stopped before they were able to commit what could have been atrocities against the local people of Bougainville, who were trying to struggle for a degree of autonomy.

I certainly think that this bill is worth supporting. I think it is one of the more important bills that we have had through this House. I commend the Government for bringing it to the House. I commend political parties for supporting it. We need this legislation to go through, and, more than that, we need it to be very well implemented and enforced in ways that will stop the misery that brokering brings to innocent civilians around the world who are victimised by the flood of small arms into the world’s conflict zones. We certainly will support this bill, and commend it to the House. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, I have to say I will make no apology for using a full 10 minutes this evening, because New Zealand First is quite puzzled by the introduction of this bill in this, the dying throes of this term of Government, by this Government and its cling-ons. We could be prioritising biosecurity, which is being punctured daily, but no. We could be debating myrtle rust and kauri dieback disease, which threaten iconic species this country, but no. We could be asking what Parliament can do to support our exporters, but no, we are not doing that. We could be raising the Manawatū Gorge as a road of real significance, but we are not doing that. We could be focused on healthcare, especially in the regions, but we are not doing that, either. We could be zeroing in on education outcomes for the young, and particularly for those students out at Mauriceville School in the Wairarapa, or on ongoing resourcing scheme funding and how totally out of kilter that is, but no, we are not doing that. It seems that, in the dying throes of this Government’s tenure, the single-biggest issue facing New Zealand in the Parliament right now—and it just saddens me that every other party in this House seems to have just fallen over and swallowed this hook, line, and sinker—is about brokering of arms and military equipment.

There may be some in this House who are more peace-sensitive than other parties, and who love this opportunity to dance around the maypole singing “Kumbaya” and telling everyone what a wonderful job we are doing here tonight. They do not like the military, they do not like the defence industry, they do not like the trade in military equipment or any of that violent sort of stuff, and we have seen enough rhetoric out of certain parties in response to the Government’s approach to youth training using the military that it is not a surprise to us that everyone is holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” over this piece of legislation. We expect this bill, like the outer space one, will see bans raised in an attempt to strangle our boutique trade and military equipment industry. In saying this, New Zealand First will support it to select committee so we can have a sensible conversation, but there is no guarantee that we will support the legislation beyond that point.

We recognise and acknowledge the commitment New Zealand has given by signing—and, by crikey, this is a test of my pronunciation—the Wassenaar Arrangement, which came into effect 21 years ago. It was 21 years ago. But we have to point out that the United States regulated its arms brokering industry in the same year, that being 1996. So an agreement that was signed in 1996 has only just assumed a position of paramount importance in this Parliament and is being put through in the dying throes of this Government’s tenure. Given it is 2017, we wonder whether Gerry Brownlee watched Netflix and stumbled across Lord of War, which saw him wonder whether we had a Nicolas Cage - type person darting around selling arms in Africa. We assume that Mr Brownlee asked his officials about this issue, and they responded: “Yes, Minister. If you think it’s that bad, you need to watch War Dogs.” While in actor Jonah Hill, Minister Brownlee might well have seen a kindred spirit, he might well have resolved at that point to do something about it, and so this bill was born. Well, this bill is over late, it is over here, and, typically, from our look at it right now, it is over the top.

New Zealand First and exporters eagerly look forward to hearing from earnest National Party backbenchers and from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee saying that this meets important international obligations and that controlling the trade in arms is vital for our country’s reputation. But here is an inconvenient question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and every other member who takes a call on this and speaks in favour: what exactly is the scale of the issue? We could argue that the speech previous to mine, by Barry Coates, actually was a good example of how people who trade illegally get caught. We could argue that in actual fact the one area of greyness that allowed that to happen has recently been highlighted in the Panama Papers, where people were able to use New Zealand, use its lax procedures to set up a company, set up a trust, and take advantage for their gain, using New Zealand’s name. Yet has this Government seriously sought to close those loopholes? No, it has not.

So it introduces this bill. This bill is one that demands primary legislation, as opposed to an amendment to something like the Customs and Excise Act, which already regulates the importation and export of arms—already. A simple adjustment to the Customs and Excise Act, done through a statutes amendment bill, would resolve this and negate the need for all this palaver—wasting the time of the House, ignoring the plight of every other New Zealander who cannot get a home and cannot get sufficient funding in their district health board. But oh, no, no, we are going to pass primary legislation, and every other party in the House appears suckered into it. Having done our research via the United States Department of State, which administers the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations, we wonder why this sledgehammer approach has been taken. Is this just to pontificate on the international stage and make Mr Brownlee and Mr McCully look wonderful? Is this to make Mr English look wonderful on the international stage: “Oh, look what we’re doing about illegal arms trading.” Just amend the Customs and Excise Act—a very simple change to a clause or two. But no, no, we have this palaver and this performance.

Bearing in mind that the United States is the world’s largest arms exporter, exporting goods worth about 5,000 times more than what New Zealand exported in 2015, a country that boasts Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and others—guess how many brokers it has? We are just trying to tease it out. How big is this problem? So in a country that manufactures arguably the most weapons in the world, how many dealers, exporters, brokers does it have? Is it 100,000? Is it 50,000? Could it be 25,000 in the whole of the United States of America? Maybe 10,000? Is it 5,000, or 2,000? Well, the answer is that the problem is so huge in the United States, or New Zealand, that in the United States it affects only 1,300 registered brokers.

Clayton Mitchell: How many?

RON MARK: 1,300. There are more people living in Eltham than there are registered arms brokers in the entire United States. Does that therefore mean the number here will be counted on fewer than the fingers of one hand? We would say, probably yes. So why, Minister, do we need a whole new Act when the Customs and Excise Act could have been amended to create a registry more in keeping with the likely numbers involved? But, typical of National, the Government against red tape and bureaucracy and legislation and regulation, this Government, as always, has managed to create a regulatory Mount Cook out of regulatory molehill.

The question that the Government needs to think about is this. If a ship-broker in Whangarei purchases a retired navy minesweeper from England and sells it to a millionaire in Florida for conversion into a gin palace, does that now mean that that broker in Whangarei has to be registered as an arms broker? Yes, it does. What is the sense in that? What is the purpose in that? There is no purpose. It makes no sense. What about someone who buys and sells military artefacts, collectable artefacts? So let us say I have a sword, there is a buyer in Australia who wants this, and I know a seller in America who needs that. So I arrange a deal between those two. Do I, as an antique arms collector, now have to register as an arms broker?

This legislation actually typifies this Government—the Government that came to power telling business that it was opposed to red tape and opposed to increased compliance costs. Here it is, once again, doing exactly that which it promised not to do. Our minds just boggle.

Clayton Mitchell: Time for a change.

RON MARK: Time for a change.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Kumbaya, Mr Assistant Speaker, kumbaya. Previous members have traversed the contents of this bill and the purpose of this bill. I simply want to reiterate Labour’s support for passing legislation in this House that brings us into alignment with other nations. This particular legislation supports our commitments under the Arms Trade Treaty, which was ratified by New Zealand back in 2014. Members have raised some issues with the bill. I am sure they will be thoroughly invested by the select committee, and we are happy to see this bill progress to that stage.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Sitting suspended from 9.15 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2017

(continued on Wednesday, 16 August 2017)

Karakia

Karakia

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I tēnei ata kua tae mai taku rahi o roto o Ngatikahu, otirā, o ngā iwi i tēnei rā. Kei te īnoi atu kia whakawātea mai Te Whare, kia tukuna atu i tētahi kupu kōrero ki te wāhi ngaro, kia tau mai ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a tātau i tēnei rā.

[This morning the greater number of me, of Ngatikahu but at the same time of the iwi, have arrived here today. I seek leave to allow the House to express a word of tribute to the unseen place, so that acts of kindness, generosity, goodwill, and respect settle upon us on this day.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Āe.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kia ora tātau kei taku rahi, he paku īnoi ki te wāhi ngaro kia tau mai ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a koutou, i a tātau i te roanga o tēnei rā. Kua haramai koutou mō tētahi kaupapa, me pērā ka tika. Nō reira, me pēnei rawa te korero: “Tuia i runga, tuia i raro, tuia i roto, tuia i waho. Tuia i te here tangata, ka rongo Te Pō, ka rongo Te Ao. Tuia i te muka tangata i takea mai i Hawaiki nui, i Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmamao, te hono i wairua ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama Koia rā e Rongo whakairia ki runga, tūturu o-whiti whakamaua kia tina! Tina! Hui ē! Tāiki ē!”

E kui mā, e koro mā, e tama mā, e hine mā i Te Pō, whakapiri mai, whakatata mai i tēnei ata, i te roanga o tēnei rā. Whakarongo mai ki ngā kōrero ka puta i roto i tēnei Whare, he whakatau i te āhuatanga o ngā mamaetanga kua rangona nei e tēnei o ngā iwi o Ngatikahu, otirā, ngā iwi kua tae mai ki roto i te pakitara o tēnei Whare i tēnei rā. Nā koutou anō rā mātau i ārahi i roto i ngā kōrero ka puta i tēnei rā, i runga i te āhuatanga o te tika, o te pono, o te māramatanga, kia mahea ake ngā taumahatanga kei runga i tēnā, i tēnā, kia puta i Te Whare kia mōhio tonu atu kua rongo ngā taringa i te āhuatanga o te kōrero. Ēhara i te mea mā te kōrero anake e ea ai ngā mamaetanga, karekau! Engari, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te noho tahi, o te wānanga i ngā kaupapa, tērā pea ka whakamāmā, ka whakangāwari te āhuatanga o ngā taumahatanga kua roa e kawe haerehia ana e tēnā, e tēnā, e tēnā.

Ko mātau ēnei i tuku atu i ngā whakamoemiti ki a koutou katoa mō ngā manaakitanga kua utaina ki runga i a mātau i ngā rā kua hipa ake, ka mutu, ka rere ngā whakaaro ki a rātau kei roto i ngā hōhipera, e tāmia ana rānei e tētahi mamaetanga, e tētahi pōuritanga, kia piki ai te kaha, te ora, te māramatanga ki runga i a rātau! Ka mutu ko te hunga kua tae mai i tēnei rā kua tae mai i runga i te āhuatanga o te rangimārie. Ko te hiahia kia kitea mai ai tētahi huarahi hei whāinga mā ngā uri whakatipu. Mā tēnei rā rātau e whakamātautau i roto i ngā āhuatanga o te wā, engari, kia puta, kia puta, kia puta rātau ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. “Koia rā e Rongo, whakairia ki runga, tūturu ōwhiti whakamaua kia tina! Tina! Hui ē! Tāiki ē!” Kia ora tātau e Te Whare.

[Salutations to us, my majority, and a small prayer to the unseen place so that acts of kindness and suchlike settle upon you and us for the rest of this day. You have arrived here in regard to a policy, and it is right that you do that. So the saying should go like this: “Unite above, below, within, without. Unite in the brotherhood of mankind, the night and day hears. Unite the descent lines that originated from the great Hawaiki, the long Hawaiki, and from Hawaiki far away, to join with the spirit to emerge into the light of day and world of light. It is that indeed Rongo, hang it up above permanently, affirm it! It is! Secure it! Draw it together! It is indeed, it is secure!”

To you, the elderly women and menfolk, the young ones, male and female, in the void, draw closer and nearer this morning and for the rest of today. Listen to the contributions that will emerge from this House to determine the circumstance of the pains felt by this one of the iwi of Ngatikahu, but, at the same time, by the iwi that arrived here within the walls of this House today. It was you once again who led us in the talks that will emerge today on the nature of the appropriateness, truth, and enlightenment to clear away the difficulties upon that individual and that one that would come out of the House to ensure that the aspect of the talk has been heard. It is not as if that talk alone will satisfy the pains, not at all! But on the basis of the circumstance in regard to the reconciliation and discussion of the proposals, perhaps the aspect of the disadvantages borne by that individual, that individual and that one for a long time will be mollified and eased.

We, these here, are the ones who expressed our appreciation to you all about the acts of kindness that were placed on us in days gone by, and, furthermore, thoughts fly out to those in hospitals overcome by an injury or depression; may the energy, life, and insight build up within them! Furthermore, those who have arrived here today have done so in a manner of good harmony. The desire is that a procedure will be found for coming descendants to pursue. This day will test them in regard to aspects of the moment, but they indeed will get out into the light of day and world of light. “It is that indeed Rongo, hang it up above permanently, affirm it! It is! Secure it! Draw it together! It is indeed, it is secure!” Cheers to us, the House.]

Bills

Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I express my warm greetings to the people of the North who have travelled here today. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. A very special welcome to Pita Pangari, who bears witness to the culmination of his hard work, and to David Manuel, the chair of the Kahukuraariki Trust.

The people who are in the gallery today have travelled almost 20 hours, from buses in the North, and there are those who have come from elsewhere, to witness and support the third reading, and I say welcome to all. I hope you enjoyed the new roads that have been built over the last few years—the Kapiti Expressway and all the other ones that Simon Bridges has been so busy with. They would have made the travel slightly more enjoyable.

It is an honour to welcome so many kuia and kaumātua here, and I want to acknowledge the patience and fortitude that has been shown over the many years that you have waited for redress for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. It really is a privilege to stand here before you today, in what we call in the House extended hours. That is why the House is not full of members: because everyone is doing lots of things in the last few days of this parliamentary session. But I can assure you that the House of Representatives, to a person, sends you all its very best wishes.

You cannot see him, because he is down the very back of the Chamber, but on this, the last Treaty day before the House rises, I want to acknowledge a very fine member of Parliament from the North, David Clendon, who leaves us at the end of this session. He has always paid a lot of attention to Treaty bills, and has been a source of wise counsel. He is a very fine man of principle. Although we have different political colours, I want to acknowledge you, Mr Clendon, and thank you for your wonderful contribution to Treaty work in the time that you have been in Parliament.

I cannot think of a better reason for extended hours than to ensure that within a few months, this wonderful iwi will have achieved what many generations of tūpuna have sought, and that is the return of Crown land from the Whakapaku, Taemaro, Waimahana, Taupō, and other blocks—the return of lands the Crown wrongly acquired and has held for far too long.

Just over 24 years ago, in May 1993, and in the presence of Matiu Rata, several of you stood united before the Waitangi Tribunal and presented the historical grievances and claims of the people of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, the descendants of Kahukuraariki. They told of how the people had protested from the moment they knew the Government claimed their land. From 1876 there were at least 19 petitions to Parliament or the Crown protesting those claims, asking for an investigation into the loss of land and asking to be granted land because they were landless. Hēmi Paiara, who had a particular grievance because he had been left off the grant for the little land the Crown reserved for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, led many of those petitions, but, as you know, he did not act alone. The numerous whānau of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa were persistent in calling on the Crown to investigate and to uphold their claims. There were a number of inquiries into those petitions over the years, and, as we know, without a positive outcome for the people.

I want to acknowledge that the case for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa was informed by oral evidence gathered from some of the elders, some of whom were among those who signed petitions presented to Parliament or the Crown earlier in the century. They hunted down and deciphered what remained of patchy and incomplete Crown records. Their evidence was painstakingly compiled, on what was probably less than a smell of an oily rag, and supported by their kuia and kaumātua.

The Muriwhenua Tribunal noted the Crown generally left no stone unturned in testing the claimants’ case, but it found the evidence compelling. The tribunal found numerous Crown actions had breached the Treaty, causing significant prejudice, including land loss, tribal dispersal, the attendant social collapse, and the burden of grievances borne down through the years. To redress that, the tribunal recommended the Crown should return Stony Creek Station and other lands to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, and that is what this settlement does, after all these years.

It is more than a generation since those tribunal hearings, and as time passes, it would be very easy to forget that when the opportunity came to give evidence, the claimants did not focus on one or other hapū. The tribunal, led by the chief judge and Bishop Bennett, undertook a significant and well-informed inquiry devoting significant time to these issues, and this settlement follows the tribunal recommendations and provides redress to serve the many, not the few. The tribunal did not investigate the Crown’s taking of land from the Taupō and the Ngāti Karaka blocks. It was up to Mr Wake Tua and others of the Kaitangata hapū to call the Crown to account for that sorry history, including the needless taking of pā and urupā during negotiations around 2006.

The Crown’s actions caused hurt to the people across the rohe, ultimately affecting a claimant group of now over 3,000 people and an area of over 50,000 hectares, and I am so pleased that through this settlement Ranfurly Bay and the Kōwhairoa Peninsula, as well as the Thomson and Clarke blocks, and many urupā and pā sites are at last being returned. The people of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa will once again be able to exercise their kaitiakitanga over their land, and the $6.2 million in financial redress will enable them to repair the deteriorating state of the farm, a situation that simply cannot continue.

There are so many people who should be acknowledged for their contributions over the last 16 years: all of the chairs of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board, the trustees of the Kahukuraariki Trust, your legal counsel and negotiators. All have worked so hard and selflessly in very, very difficult circumstances. I also want to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues and Government and other agencies who have contributed to this bill, and, in fact, all the House, because the members of the Māori Affairs Committee looked at this bill very, very carefully indeed. Together, they have helped place the future of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa in the hands of its own people.

Let us be perfectly blunt about this—getting to this point was not easy. It is well known that for a number of years some members of the Ngāti Aukiwa hapū have occupied Stony Creek, and it is well documented that numerous attempts have been made to reach a resolution. I certainly want to acknowledge Mr Korako and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their very hard work on this issue and their exploration of the issues raised in submissions.

We know from history that the problems in this region have been caused by the Crown picking winners. That is why I am reassured that the trust, wish some assistance over the last few months, from independent facilitators—and I acknowledge Peter Douglas and Ken Mair—is working hard to provide a pathway for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa members to resolve these issues between themselves. That will involve a number of steps, including bringing forward elections for marae-based representatives to replace the current trustees, and work in the post-settlement era, establishing a commercial enterprise to restore and repair the farm, and bringing forward the comprehensive process involving all parties to determine the future ownership of the station. So they are not easy issues but I am certain that given the hard work to date we will find success.

I was not aware that there had been a bell, but I see that the time is drawing to a close, so I will jump a few pages. The Deputy Speaker is retiring in a few days and he is obviously starting to slip up. [Bell rung] Ah, there we go. That gives me 4 seconds to wish Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa all the very best for the future. I am so delighted we have reached this stage, and I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): “Ā, tuku mauri ora ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama, tihewā mauri ora!” Ki te kaiwhakarite i tō tātau ata nei, e kara, e Te Ururoa Flavell, e mihi atu ana ki a koe i whakaritea mai tō tātau nohoanga i te rā nei, kia tutuki pai ai ngā kaupapa kei mua i te aroaro, mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei rā, tae noa atu ki tōna otinga, tēnei e mihi atu ana ki a koe! Huri tū ngā whakaaro ki ngā aituā maha o te wā, ngā aituā maha i pīkauria mai e Ngatikahu me ōna hapū katoa ki te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare. Nā, kia tāpae atu ki ngā aituā maha kei runga i tēnā, i tēnā, i tēnā o mātau e noho mai nei, kia kotahi ai te tangi atu, kia kotahi ai te poroporoaki atu ki ngā mate, haere, haere, haere! Ko te whakataukī o te kāinga e kī pēnei ana: “He rāngai maomao ka taka i tua o Nuku-taurua e kore e muri a hokia.” Nō reira koutou o Te Pō, haere, haere, haere!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau te hunga ora, tēnā tātau! E ōku tini whanaunga o te kāinga ka kite atu ahau i a koutou, ka whakaaro ake mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna ā taihoa ake nei. Ka whakaaro anō hoki mō ngā tini kaumātua, mō ngā tini whāea, pakeke o te kāinga kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō. Mahara atu ana au i te tāima i tupu au ki roto o Waimahana, i tae mai te nuinga ki tetahi huihuinga ki runga i te marae. I reira ngā kaumātua puta noa i Te Tai Tokerau ki te tautoko i tēnei kaupapa. Ko reira te amuamu, ko reira anō hoki ngā nawe a tēnā, a tēnā. Hei te otinga ake, ka kī mai te hui me anga whakamua. Nō reira, ka kite atu ahau i ngā kōhao kei roto i a koutou, ka whakaaro ake ki a rātau kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, ā, ko tetahi e mōhio ana koutou, ko tōku pāpā, ko tōku tupuna i ngaro atu i te tau kua pahure ake ne. I tēnei wā e takoto mai ana ki roto i te kāinga o Waimahana. Ko reira mātau, otirā, tātau e tangi hotuhotu ana mōna kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō.

Kāti e ōku rangatira, kua tae ki te wā kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō te huarahi i takahia e koutou ki tēnei tāima, mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi tae noa mai ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō ngā take e pā ana ki te pāmu e kīia nei ko Waikōhatu—e aua! I a au e tamariki ana, ka huri mai i te rori matua anga atu ki Waimahana anā, ko te wāhi tērā o Akatere. Anā, ka piki haere i ngā maunga, heke iho ki roto i a au i Te Whanga o Kōkori, anā, heke atu ki roto o Waimahana ki Ōmata, ki tērā taha o te whanga. Nō reira, ka whakaaro ake i ēnei kupu ki roto i te pire nei: a Waikōhatu, a Stony Creek—e aua! I a au e tamariki ana, rawa au i rongo atu i tērā ingoa a Stony Creek, a Waikōhatu. Ko reira ngā ingoa o ngā mātua, o ngā tupuna—koia rā tāku e mea atu ana. Nā, i te wāhi e tū ana te kāinga o Waikōhatu, anā, ko Akatere. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou kua tae mai nei.

Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō ētahi o ngā raruraru kua pā ki tēnei kaupapa. Kua kōrero mai anō a ia mō te rahi o te pūtea ka tukuna ki a Waikōhatu, ki te whakatikatika i te āhuatanga o tērā pāmu. E mihi atu ana ahau ki a ia engari, he pātai nui kei runga i waku ngutu i tēnei wā. Mehemea i tūkinohia e Te Karauna tāua a te Māori, he aha te take kua—he aha nei nā te kupu? Kua tukuna mai i tetahi kōnae pūtea iti nei, ki te whakatikatika i tetahi āhuatanga i tūkinohia mai e Te Karauna i a tāua Te Māori engari, koinā tāku i te tīmatanga o tēnei kōrero. Ka whakaaro ake mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā mokopuna ā taihoa ake nei, me te hiahia kia kite atu i ngā tamariki, mokopuna o te hau kāinga ki ngā wawata i wawatahia e ōku mātua, e ōku tūpuna o te kāinga, mō rātau te take. Kaua mō rātau, mō ngā tūpuna engari, mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Mahara atu ana au i ngā tāima i kai rama he tōku pāpā me ngā kaumātua o te kāinga o Waimahana. Ko te nuinga o wā rātau kōrero, e hāngai pū ana ki wā rātau mokopuna, tamariki, me te hiahia, kia kaua e noho pōhara wā rātau tamariki, mokopuna, me te hiahia kia kite atu i ngā uri whakatupu e tū pakari nei ki roto i te ao, kaua mō rātau anake, engari mō te painga o te katoa.

Nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koe e Te Minita kua whakaritea mai i tēnei pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te rā nei. E tautoko atu ana i ngā mihi kua kōrero mai nā e koe mō ngā āpiha o tō tari, i whakapau werawera mō te kaupapa nui o te wā nei. E tautoko atu anō au i ngā mihi i ūhia e koe ki runga i a mātau Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori. I kai parakuihi mātau i te ata nei, e whakaae ana mātau katoa, ko ngā kaupapa ka tau ki mua i te aroaro o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori, ēhara i te mea māmā, ēhara i te mea māmā, he uaua! He uaua te kawe ake i ngā kaupapa Māori ki roto i tēnei Whare kua whakatūria e te mana o Te Pākehā, o Te Kāwanatanga engari, i tutuki i a mātau, Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori, e te heamana o taua rōpū, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe, e Tutehounuku Korako.

E aku rangatira, ki roto i ngā meneti e 2 e toe ana, ka whakaaro ake mō ngā whakapapa kai roto i a au o Ngatikahu, me ōna pānga katoa ki ngā iwi puta noa i Te Tai Tokerau. Ka tīmata pēnei: ko Muriwhenua tāna, ko Tamatea tāna, ko Kahungunu tāna, ko Kahukura-nui tāna, ko Kahukura-ariki, i whakaritea mai e tēnei pire ko ngā uri o Kahukura-ariki. E Ngatikahu, i kōrero mai Te Minita mō te rīpoata a Te Taraipiunara e pā ana ki a Muriwhenua. I taua tāima, i noho kotahi Te Hiku o Te Ika mō tēnei take. Kua kite atu ahau ki roto i ngā tau 10 kua pahure ake, kua wāwāhi nei tātau e te ture. Kua wāwāhi nei te ture i a tātāu! I kite atu ahau i te tau kua pahure ake nei, i tutuki te kerēme a Te Rarawa, i tutuki te kerēme a Ngāti Kurī, a Te Aupōuri, a Ngāi Takoto. I tēnei wā, nā ka eke mai ngā uri a Kahukura-ariki ki tēnei taumata, arā, te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire i te rā nei.

E āhua rangirua ana ahau i tēnei wā. Ko tētahi taha o te ngākau e pōuri ana, ko tētahi taha o te ngākau e harikoa ana. Ko te manako, kia piri ngātahi te pōuritanga me te harikoa, nā runga i te whakaaro nui ki ngā mokopuna, tamariki ki roto i ngā tau e tū mai nei. Nō reira, ko tāku atu ki ōku whanaunga o te kāinga, kia kaha rā koutou. Kaua e tukuna mā te ture tātau e wehewehe. Ko te manako, kia tau anō ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire ki runga i ngā marae puta noa i te kāinga. E aku rangatira, koutou kua heke iho mai ki tēnei pito o te whenua, ko te manako, kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga o Te Kaihanga ki Runga i a koutou e hoki atu ana ki te kāinga. Ko tāku atu ki a koutou ki roto i ngā marama me ngā tau e tū nei, ka tūtaki anō tātau ki runga i ngā marae o te kāinga. E te pāpā, e Pita, mihi atu ana au ki a koe, otirā, ki a koutou e ōku mātua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa!

[“’Tis the growth of life towards the glimmer of dawn and the bright light of day, behold the breath of life!” To the one who organised us this morning, friend, Te Ururoa Flavell, I commend you who gave the prayer for our sitting on this day so that matters before us are completed well from the beginning of this day until its conclusion, I salute you! Thoughts turn and stop at the many deceased of the moment, the numerous deaths borne here on the backs of Ngatikahu and all its hapū to the ridge pole of our House. And now I add the numerous deaths that are upon that one, that one, and that one of us seated about here, so that we mourn and farewell them as one, oh the deaths, depart, go forth, farewell! The aphorism of home goes like this: “A shoal of blue maomao fish passes around Nuku-taurua rock will not return.” So you collectively of the void, go forth, depart, farewell!

Therefore, I bring the lines of conversation back to us the living, greetings to us! To you my countless relations of home, when I see you collectively I reflect on the children and grandchildren still to come. I also think about the many elders, mothers, aunties, and adults of home who are lost to the void. I think about the time I grew up in Waimahana, a large majority arrived at a gathering on the marae. The elderly were there from throughout Northland to support this matter. Complaints were there and so were grievances as well as different ones. At the end of it all the gathering said let’s go forward. Therefore, I see the gaps amongst you and think about them who are lost to the void, and one of whom you know was my dad and my ancestor who died in the year just past. At this very moment he is lying there in the Waimahana settlement. We were there but at the same time all of us were lamenting and sobbing for him who has gone to the void.

Enough my esteemed ones, we have arrived at the moment when the Minister talks about the route you collectively travelled to this moment from the first reading until you arrived at the third reading of this bill. The Minister has spoken about the issues relating to the farm called Waikōhatu—I don’t know! When I was little, one turned off the main road facing Waimahana there, and that place was Akatere. It was there then that one climbed one’s self up the mountains, and then dropped down to within Kōkiri Bay, and then down into Waimahana at Ōmata on that side of the bay. And so, I reflect on these words in this bill: Waikōhatu and Stony Creek—I don’t know! When I was a child, I never heard the name Stony Creek, Waikōhatu. The ancestral and parental names were there—that’s what I’ve been saying in the place where the settlement of Waikōhatu is standing is Akatere. Therefore, I acknowledge you collectively who have arrived here.

The Minister has talked about some of the problems that have impacted on this proposal. He has also spoken about the size of the funding given to Waikōhatu to rectify the situation concerning that farm. I commend him, but I have a big question on my lips at this point in time. If the Crown has mistreated you and I, the Māori, what’s the reason why—what’s the word? A really small basket of funding has been provided to rectify a situation of maltreatment by the Crown of you and I, of Māori, but that’s what I alluded to at the start of this address. I think about the children and grandchildren in the future, with the desire to see them feature in the aspirations yearned for by my parents and ancestors from back home, and they being the reason. Not for us and for the ancestors but for children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren. I recall the times when my dad and elders of the settlement of Waimahana consumed rum wrongfully. Much of their conversations focused on their children and grandchildren and that they don’t end up impoverished and that they see descendants well established in the world, not for themselves but for the betterment of all.

And so I commend you the Minister for this bill you have considered and placed before the House on this day. I endorse the tributes you accorded to the officials of your office, who expended perspirations upon the important matter of the moment. I also endorse the thanks you showered upon us the Māori Affairs Committee. We had breakfast together this morning and agreed totally that proposals that come before us in regard to Māori matters are never easy, not at all, they are difficult. It is always difficult handling Māori matters in this House under the Pākehā and government autonomy, but we the Māori Affairs Committee did it and so I commend you Tutehounuku Korako, the chairman of the group.

In the remaining 2 minutes that I have left before me, my esteemed ones, I will recall the Ngatikahu genealogy that I have within me and all my connections to the iwi throughout Northland. I will begin like this: Muriwhenua has a connection, so has Tamatea, Kahungunu, Kahukura-nui, and Kahukura-ariki, and this bill gives due consideration to the descendants of Ngāti Kahukura-ariki. Ngatikahu, the Minister spoke about the tribunal report concerning Muriwhenua. At that time and for this matter Northland was one. I note that in the past 10 years, we have been fragmented by law. I note that in the year just past, claims by Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, and Ngāi Takoto have been passed. And now at this very moment, the descendants of Kahukura-ariki have reached this summit, in other words, the third reading of this bill today.

At this moment I am somewhat confused. One side of me is saddened, and the other side is extremely happy. The hope is that sadness and elation remain stuck together, based upon the great regard there is for the grandchildren and children in the years to come. And so mine to my relatives of home is that you need to be strong. Don’t let the law divide us. The desire is that comments relating to this bill that are settled here will apply to all marae throughout at home. To you my esteemed ones who came down here to this end of the country, the wish is that the care of the Creator above be upon you collectively as you return home. And furthermore, mine to you collectively in the month and years that are ahead is that we meet again upon the marae of home. And so I acknowledge you my father figure, Pita, but at the same time, you my grown-ups, acknowledgments, accolades and congratulations to you collectively, and to us all!]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā iwi o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Nō reira, mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa e nunui, nō reira, ki a koutou rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge you all throughout this House. I pay a tribute to the people of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Therefore, bring forth your teachings in regard to this policy of huge significance, so accolades and acknowledgments indeed to you collectively. I commend you all.]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. It was in December 2015 when I had the honour of accompanying the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to Te Tai Tokerau to witness the signing of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa deed of settlement at Ōtangaroa Marae.

This has been a challenging settlement to negotiate. As we all know, there are longstanding divisions within Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and certain elements within the iwi that have made this process a challenge for them. But I want to say here today, as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, is that one thing is that we are not a committee that only listens to the submissions from those on any bill who are actually in agreement with it. We also obviously listen very, very closely to the dissenters—to those who do not agree with the settlement. One of the situations here is that we did listen very, very closely to those who were not happy with this settlement, in the various stages of its journey through the House.

The main issue is in regard to the ownership of Stony Creek Station, as we have heard from previous speakers, and it is something that the Māori Affairs Committee looked into very, very closely. It was very clear that, contrary to some of the claims that have been made, almost all of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa members have a historical connection or ownership claim to Stony Creek Station. Therefore, it is very important that this piece of land be available as redress to the whole iwi.

However, disputes still remain and it is not the Crown’s role, I believe—and we believe as the Māori Affairs Committee—to settle an internal dispute. After the settlement, the post-settlement governance entity will be responsible for carrying out an open and transparent process within the iwi to determine the final ownership of Stony Creek Station and what that actually should look like.

I look forward to seeing the situation where the iwi is able to move on—not only from their disputes with the Crown, but from the internal disputes that might threaten their future development. I do have confidence that the hapū and the iwi leadership will be able to negotiate these very difficult waters at this stage.

I think enough has been said now about the recent history and the internal disputes that have made this settlement difficult. But I want to reflect today, at this third reading, on the history of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and the disputes with the Crown that have made this settlement necessary. This is an iwi that has had its lands systematically alienated through multiple Crown actions. In seeking to settle a dispute between two rakatira, the Crown simply acquired their land interests, including Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa ancestral lands.

When the Crown purchased land and promised to set it aside as reserves, it later reduced the agreed size of those reserves. Even when reserves were agreed upon and set aside, the Crown awarded the title to individuals rather than the iwi. When Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa generously offered 10 acres for a public reserve, the Crown decided instead that it would take 706. More recently, the Crown retained ownership of land that the navy occupied during World War II and transferred it to the then Department of Lands and Survey in 1983. It was only returned to Māori in 1990. The Crown also purchased land at Matakaraka, for a scenic reserve, without the consent of all of the owners.

As a result of all of these Crown actions, Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa were left virtually landless. Many of their people have been forced to live outside of their rohe. These are the actions that the Crown has now apologised, unreservedly, for. Today we are giving legal effect to the settlement, which seeks not to compensate for all that was taken but to restore Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, their connection to their land, and to provide an economic base for their future development.

This is the end of a long and particularly difficult journey for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. It is also the start of a new journey that will have its own challenges, but one that gives the iwi the opportunity to set its own destiny, to restore its rakatirataka.

It has been an honour to have some involvement in this process, as a witness to the deed of settlement signing, and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. I acknowledge those who have had much more involvement than me, and in particular the Hon Christopher Finlayson as Minister and also the chief negotiator, Dr Ella Henry, and everyone else who has fought for this settlement over the many years. I would also like to acknowledge, at this third reading, my members of the Māori Affairs Committee.

We ensured, right up until the 11th hour of this settlement, that we had heard all of those who were still not happy with this settlement. I want to acknowledge also, at this time, the special advisers who have been brought on board to help facilitate post legislation, after this has actually been elevated to law: Peter Douglas and Ken Mair. They will assist the iwi and the post-settlement governance entity to find their way through that particular issue around Stony Creek Station.

Over the last 3 years we have received into the Māori Affairs Committee many Treaty settlement bills. That is a testament also, I believe, in looking at this today—that we have actually been very careful and have worked hard at being balanced as to what we have actually believed is the right thing to do. On that note, with all of those who are here from Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, for all of those who are actually listening to this historic event today, we as the Māori Affairs Committee, in hearing all the submissions and going to the Far North and going to that beautiful area where your iwi actually resides, believe that the people of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa will actually be able to find their way through and that the next stage of the development of your iwi is for those tamariki and mokopuna who are here today, but also those who are actually there and wanting this settlement.

Nō reira, Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, kia kaha, kia kaha. Nō reira e koutou rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.

[Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, be strong and courageous. Therefore, to you indeed collectively, I commend you all, thank you.]

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou mā, ngā whānau me ngā hapū katoa o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Ko au tete’i o ngā uri o Kahukuraariki e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki te Whare Paremata nei, ā, tēnā koutou katoa! E tika hoki kia tuku mihi atu ki Te Minita a Te Ururoa Flavell, nāna i tuku atu Te Reo whakamoemiti i tēnei ata, nō reira, ngā mi’i nui ki a ia, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time to us all, it is fitting that I acknowledge you collectively and the others, all the whānau and hapū of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. I am one of the descendants of Kahukuraariki extending a welcome to you all, come forth, come hither and pay homage to this Parliament here, and so welcome to you all! It is apt as well that I pay a tribute to the Minister for Māori Development, Te Ururoa Flavell. He gave the prayer of thanks this morning, so a huge appreciation to him, but at the same time to us all.]

Third readings of any claims settlement bill are special days, and I want to acknowledge the journey and the destination, because today is not only a destination but the start of a new journey. I want to support the words of my colleague Nuk Korako, the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, who has done a wonderful job in chairing that select committee, and acknowledge all of the members as well for the collaborative way in which that particular committee works on settlement bills—actually, on all the bills that it considers. I think it is important to acknowledge those words, because it is the start of a new journey; one where Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa can be future-focused, and, as Nuk Korako mentioned, this, like all settlements, is the legacy for future generations. I want to support those sentiments.

In the second reading I spoke about the framework of the settlement process and all that that means, and I want to restate one thing that I absolutely believe in. That is that every—the Crown describes those who participate in the settlement process as being the claimant group. We call ourselves iwi, of course, but it is incumbent upon the claimant group to understand what this process can deliver, what it cannot deliver, and whether or not we can live with it. That is critically important because, by entering into the process, we are really saying that we accept the process, we accept what it cannot deliver, although we might not agree with that. But we have to accept what it can deliver, and we are saying that we can live with it. So I congratulate the negotiators and the entire iwi, who have had the courage to go down this pathway.

So why exactly would one do that? There have been many, many Treaty settlements that have come through this House, and you have to ask yourself why it is, if we all accept that it cannot deliver everything that we want, you would actually go down that track anyway. Surely, the answer is because of the opportunities that it will provide for the future generations. I have said before and I will say it again in this House, that I would be very disappointed if our future generations do not look back at what we have done for our respective iwi and do not re-examine exactly what has happened. I think that is a positive message about both the hope for the future and how we can address the ongoing issues of perhaps not being fully satisfied with the outcome. So I once again acknowledge the courage that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa has in taking this settlement to this point.

Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou ngā whānau me ngā hapū katoa, Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoia, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangimatamomoe, Ngāti Roha, Ngāti Rua, ngā uri katoa o Kahukuraariki, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu mō ō koutou māia, ō koutou kaha kia tae pai mai ki tēnei wā.

[Much appreciation to all of you the whānau and hapū, Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoia, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangimatamomoe, Ngāti Roha, Ngāti Rua, all the relatives of Kahukuraariki, I extend an appreciation to you for your collective boldness and efforts to arrive here well at this point in time.]

I do want to also speak about the content of the settlement, because I think it is the content of the settlement that will provide ways of strengthening and developing further Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. For me, the cultural redress aspects of this settlement are important in recognising the mana of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa but also providing opportunities to re-establish the way in which it expresses who we are. I think that these cultural redress mechanisms are very good ones. For example, statutory acknowledgments that can be used in different fora to express the interest that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa has within certain areas. Deeds of recognition, as well, the transfer of cultural sites back to the iwi, are important expressions of that.

As I stand here and speak about these things, even the terminology that we use within this process—redress. Redress is not compensation. Redress is about addressing the breaches of the Treaty, the acknowledgments from the Crown, and its apology to the people in a way that recognise that this is an avenue of address, not compensation. That goes back to my earlier comment about whether or not we can live with this.

So the cultural redress, I think, is a way in which we can express our hope for the future around our cultural integrity, our traditions, and the way we move forward. The commercial redress, of course, is about growing the asset for the future generations so that they are able to—in a very real way, in a very material way—be able to be Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, and that the whole world will know it.

So I congratulate the negotiators for their tenacity in coming up with an agreement with the commercial redress that has been agreed upon. I think that, as mentioned by other speakers, it is also a pathway forward to address disagreement amongst the iwi, as well, and I am not going to relitigate everything that has been said in the House, but simply say to all of the whānau and all of the hapū that this is an opportunity for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa to move forward, and that the answer lies within Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, not within the Crown and not within Parliament. It resides solely within Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

Nō reira, anei ahau e tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou katoa anō, ā, ko te tūmanako kia ūhia mai e Te Runga Rawa ōna manaakitanga ki runga ki a koutou, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui i roto i ēnei āhuatanga katoa, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Therefore I once again extend a tribute to you all in the hope that the Almighty above throws his generosities upon you. Be strong, bold, and stout of heart in all these circumstances, therefore greetings and salutations to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā, e ngā iwi, kia ora mai tātou.

[To the esteemed ones and others, to the iwi, acknowledgments to us all.]

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the Minister and his team, the Office of Treaty Settlements, the negotiators, and the select committee for their diligence.

As the MP for Whangarei, Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa sits not in my electoral responsibility, but in my regional responsibility. I am very pleased that today they become another Northland iwi to settle. Today they show iwi on their boundary how to progress. This settlement today endorses the process and the representation of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa in the eyes of this Government. This settlement process has been robust. I believe the settlement process has been robust: 7 weeks of ratification process; four ratification hui; voting for 10 weeks and 5 days; advertisements in local papers, national papers, on local radio, and in email lists; 2,426 voting packs were sent out, with 750 returned—for a participation rate of 30.9 percent, which sits mid-range for Treaty settlements and for post-settlement governance entity participation. The Māori Affairs Committee heard 18 submissions, and brought deep bipartisan parliamentary exploration to the settlement process. Their decision was: “Keep moving.”

I also acknowledge the challenges over many decades, especially Stony Creek Station—as has been mentioned here by my colleagues today. But I believe that if every party here today wants Māori to progress, if every party here today wants Northland Māori to progress, and if every party here today wants Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa to progress, then when the 12th speaker finishes, and the Speaker in the Chair says, “All those in favour, say Aye,” do not refrain. Do not tilt at leadership, but be leadership. Raise your voice in unison with us. Say “Aye”. Say “Aye” to the historical account, to the acknowledgment, and to the apology. Say “Aye” to the cultural redress. Say “Aye” to the financial and commercial redress, and say “Aye” to a new future for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. It is a privilege to stand and commend this bill to the House. Kia ora mai tātou.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare huri noa ki a koutou katoa; ki a koutou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, ngā uri, ngā mokopuna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Pai te kite i a koutou katoa i tēnei Whare Pāremata, nā, uru mai, kia ora. Nei rā te mokopuna o Te Tai Tokerau, o Ngāpuhi, o Te Rarawa, nā reira, tēnā koutou ōku kaihana. Ā, kia ora koutou katoa. He mihi anō ki a ia, Te Minita, ko Te Ururoa Flavell i tōna whakatau mai i tōna whakaminenga mai: kia ora koe.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to you all throughout; to you of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, to the descendants and grandchildren, acknowledgments and salutations to you. It is nice to see you all in this House, so come in, hello. Here indeed is the grandchild of Northland, and of Ngāpuhi and Te Rarawa; hello there, my cousins. Greetings, indeed, to you all. I also acknowledge the Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, in terms of his formal welcome and prayer: thank you very much.]

I rise, certainly as an honour, to be able to speak in the third reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. It is not so much a pleasure, I think, as it is a question for all of us in this House and for the Crown to consider what our role is as representatives in this House of Representatives for iwi like Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, for the future of Treaty settlements, and for the role of the Crown, and to consider how we can do better in dealing with the historical raruraru the Crown has created—the wedging that its process has created—for our whānau and hapū and iwi.

The question that I think has to be acknowledged is how we can rectify the historical injustice that has created so much of the raruraru today. When we feel love for everybody who is feeling both the mamae and the celebration of today, and when we stand here as Māori members of Parliament and feel both the celebration and the acknowledgment of the years and years of hard mahi that has been done by our people—the people who have to bear the brunt and the burden, and the future celebrations for all the work that has been done—where is the leadership and where is the ball in our court, as the House of Representatives, to really address the injustice and to really uphold a process that is not full and final? It is not full and final. Te Tiriti was never supposed to be full and final. It is an enduring, enduring relationship to seek Treaty justice.

I firstly want to make it very clear that I am here with aroha and admiration and respect for the raru and the difficulties and the leadership that Ngatikahu have displayed—that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa have shown us. I am also here with a rumbling puku, not just for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa but for ongoing Treaty settlements that have happened and that are yet to happen—my goodness, I am from Ngāpuhi.

So, you know, how can we do better? How can the Crown, which controls the timeliness, or the time framework, of the settlements and what the settlements look like, and controls what is given back from what was stolen—it was stolen. We use words like “extinguishing customary native title”. We use words like “taking a little bit more than what was offered in the first place”. Our whenua around the motu was stolen, and in most of the cases, the Crown lied to do it. My understanding from recent events is that our country is outraged by lying and thieving, but, apparently, not when it comes to Tiriti settlements.

So Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, and all of the hapū and iwi who have had to be a part of this process, I salute you all. I salute you all for bearing the brunt of what the Crown has done to your people, to your mokopuna—kei te haere mai. Today is not at all the end of anything. It is the start of hard roads, and we wish you all the kaha—all the kaha.

I think if we are asking ourselves as representatives of this House how we can do better, we cannot overlook the historical accounts of what has happened. We cannot overlook—because this is why we are here—that the Crown created further disputes, and wedged in writ our whānau and iwi and hapū. In its actions, the Crown did that. For example, when the Crown was meant to investigate the legitimacy of transactions in the 1840s that had happened within the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa rohe, in most cases it failed to do that. It set up some seedy deals. The Crown set up some seedy deals to get its hand on whenua and, purposefully and intentionally, it did not investigate the raru that was created from those seedy deals.

Clause 8 of the bill says: “In the 1850s, the Crown investigated some Mangonui land claims, but did not investigate others. Though Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa occupied many of these blocks, the Crown failed to adequately consider their customary interests.” It did not fail; it was a proactive decision. Let us be very clear about that.

I have talked previously about extinguishing customary title. Clause 8 says: “The Crown considered all customary title was extinguished if a land commissioner confirmed the transaction. It assumed ownership”—it assumed ownership; that is called stealing land—“of an estimated 11 000 acres of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa ancestral lands through its ‘surplus’ land policy.” It assumed ownership. I am pleased to see that the bill outlines—that was a small, little smidgeon of what has happened historically to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, including what happened with Stony Creek and Ngāti Aukiwa. I acknowledge Ngāti Aukiwa, and I acknowledge the raru that has been there for a long time.

The Greens are very clear that these settlements should not be full and final. We are very clear that we must undertake a comprehensive review of Te Tiriti in Treaty settlement processes. We are very clear, for example, that when we say that iwi have the right of first refusal, it should mean the right of first refusal, not second or third. The Green Party is very clear that we should allow settlements to be revisited where situations have changed or claimants have been shut out of original negotiations, and, once again, we are very clear that Treaty settlements should not be full and final.

We are also concerned—and this I think goes to the heart of this particular settlement—that claims should be settled with the definition term “large natural groupings”. This goes to the very heart of the raru in this settlement and most other settlements. That is a Crown power definition. That is how the Crown upholds its definition and its power—through choosing whom it gets to settle with.

In my final mihi to you, Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, I say that at the third readings, we often, I think, feel like this is our lot here, in this House. It should never be. We should be responsible. The Crown should remain responsible for seeking and ensuring that justice happens for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, for all the hapū and iwi concerned, and for generations to come. I look forward when the real leadership can come from this House, when we can maintain our journey—the Crown’s journey—to uphold its end of the bargain. Kia koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou o Te Whare. Te mea tuatahi, kei te mihi atu ki tō tātou kaiwhakarite, nāna i whakapūare tēnei wāhanga, kia īnoi atu ki Te Runga Rawa, kia hōmai wana korowai aroha kei runga i a tātou, i runga ake i ngā pire e pā ana ki a ngāi tātou, Te Iwi Māori, i te rā nei. Nā reira, ka mihi hoki ki a koe e Te Ururoa.

Ka hoki mai ki ngā mihi i mihingia ki a koutou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Kei te tautoko au i ngā mihi o te tuakana a Peeni, ki a koutou; e tika ana wana kōrero! Kei te mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā hunga, ahakoa ki konei ā-wairua engari, horekau i konei ā-tinana, rātou i rūpeke ki tua o te ārai. Nā reira, e tika ana kia kaha ana i a tātou ki te mihi tonu ki a rātou.

Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tātou o tēnei ao, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[So thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us, as well, of the House. Firstly, I commend our prayer maker, who opened this part and prayed to the Almighty above to give us his cloaks of empathy and throw them over us and the bills relating to us, the Māori people, today. Therefore, I pay a tribute to you, as well, Te Ururoa.

I come back to the acknowledgments that were accorded to you of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. I endorse the tributes of the elder sibling Peeni to you collectively; his comments were right! I pay a tribute to that one of the number, even though they are here only in spirit and not physically but have gone beyond the barrier. Therefore, it is fitting that we work hard to continue to acknowledge them.

Let us come back to us, the living and of this world, so acknowledgments, accolades and salutations to you collectively.]

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we have some disquiet about the bill—not the intent of the bill, because we certainly support the notion that a settlement should be made. During the process of reaching this point, there have been some members of the tribe who have expressed their opposition to the bill, and I think it is incumbent on us—certainly, we have taken the view—to articulate some of those concerns that they have. I know they realise that the bill will pass its third reading today and, therefore, the responsibility going forward will be left to the iwi; however, they have asked us, New Zealand First, to just have their concerns recorded in the record of the House. I ought to say that the comments that will be made on their behalf are what they have articulated to us. Some of those concerns have been articulated to the Māori Affairs Committee, and they have certainly had the opportunity to have further discussions with those who are involved in the future administration of this settlement. So I just want to place that on record in the first instance.

Before doing so, I want to reiterate just what this bill is all about. Fifteen cultural sites will be vested in Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, totalling approximately 3,422 hectares. The largest is, of course, that area known as Stony Creek, which has really been the major area of contention—not only with Stony Creek but along with two adjoining farm properties that total 3,045 hectares. There is a financial redress of $6.2 million in lieu of the Crown’s 2007 commitment to maintain the condition of Stony Creek Station’s plant and stock until transfer.

If that is the total quantum that is being paid under this bill, then that suggests to us in New Zealand First that the quantum is only for, or in relation to, Stony Creek. Is there any quantum for the other areas of the claims for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa? The settlement also provides a cultural fund of $300,000 for the development and implementation of a reserve management plan for Kōwhairoa Peninsula, 290 hectares of which transfers to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa as a historic reserve.

Stony Creek has been, according to the Crown, illegally occupied for the last 10 years. The occupation results from a dispute about iwi boundaries and who should and should not be included as beneficiaries of the settlement redress. Therein lies the nub of the concern of those who oppose this bill. So it is on record. Whether it has substance or not, this is where we have some concern about the part that the Crown has suggested in this bill, which is that it should be left to an independent group to determine the ownership and all those issues surrounding Stony Creek.

I can appreciate the Crown and the Minister having a desire to see some resolution, but also I recognise that it is only fair to those who want to proceed that they should be allowed to proceed. But, at the same time, it should be left to those who have that concern to sort it out. I want to acknowledge Mr Peter Douglas and Ken Mair, who have attempted to be part of that process, to encourage a resolution prior to this day. Unfortunately, they have not been able to do so, but I understand they will continue to work in that vein.

One of the other concerns was from a hapū called Ngāi Takiora. Their points of objection for and on behalf of their hapū are: firstly, the lack of inclusion of Ngāi Takiora being the hapū of Rewiri Kaiwaka in the consultation process, when historical claims from the first initial claim by Rewiri Kaiwaka were included in the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa historical account; secondly, the continued use of Ngāi Takiora claimants throughout history without consultation; thirdly, Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and its hapū accepting settlement of Maunga Whakaangi when the historical evidence points to Ngāi Takiora being the hapū that has mana whenua; fourthly, the questionable constitution that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust engages to gain a majority and implement motions to favour Kahukuraariki Trust members; and, fifthly, the lack of transparency of information and process. Whether that is right or wrong, that is their interpretation of the process to date, and I just want to put that on the record on their behalf.

While this settlement bill addresses a number of claims on behalf of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, clearly there are some people within the iwi who do not support the bill itself and, therefore, the settlement. But I think it is important for the post-settlement group, which will be charged with taking this matter forward on behalf of its iwi, to ensure that as it moves forward, it takes along with it those people who oppose the bill at this stage. I ask that it give serious consideration to that. Do not read the comments of New Zealand First as opposing your settlement and your desire to move forward, but, rather, as wanting to remind those who will have the responsibility of taking your people with you. I often quote this example. When I was appointed the chairman of my particular iwi rūnanga, my dad told me: “Son, if you think you’re going to lead your people, never ever forget to look behind you, because if there is no one there, then you have to ask yourself: who you are leading?”.

So while we can commend the bill to the House, we do have some reservations about the intent of it. Tēnā koe.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Nei te mihi atu ki a koutou kua hui nei i tēnei ata, tēnei rangi whakahirahira mō tātau katoa i roto i Te Whare Pāremata, ko ngā mahi nunui kei mua i a mātou, ko wēnei mahi, te tutukitanga o ngā nawe o ngā hapū, o ngā iwi i tae ā-tinana mai ki tēnei Whare. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki tō koutou Whare; tēnei Whare āhua Pākeha nei ēhara mō Te Pākeha anake. Kei konei tātau, kei konei tātau mō ake tonu atu, me kaua e wareware kai konei mō ake tonu atu!

[I acknowledge you collectively, those who have assembled here this morning on this day of significance for us all in Parliament in regard to the major tasks that are before us, these tasks being the completion of the grievances that belong to the hapū and iwi who have arrived here physically at this House. So salutations to you collectively, welcome, come hither to your House, this House which appears somewhat Pākeha but is not for Pākeha only. We are here, we are here for ever, and don’t ever forget we are here for ever and ever!]

There is a famous quote by Sir James Hēnare that says: “It is preposterous that Māori should aspire to be poor pākehā.” By the actions of the Crown throughout the years that it has engaged with Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, it is exactly that that it has wished Māori would aspire to. That is evident. That is evident throughout this settlement.

Even in the documentation itself—well, let me go straight there. This is exactly what it says. It says that the Crown failed to consider customary rights. The Crown failed to assess the impact of alienation of these lands on Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. The Crown failed to survey these lands. The Crown did not challenge the Native Land Court’s 1870 award of nearly 4,000 acres to Taemaro within the period provided in the native land laws, and it ignored their appeals. The Crown coerced them into surrendering the title for the block—failed, coerced. The Crown did not include all areas occupied and cultivated by Ngāti Kahungunu—sorry, that is me—Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. See, that is our whakapapa link right there. The Crown failed to ensure that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa retained adequate reserves.

The Crown went on. Lands were susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, and by the end of all the Crown’s efforts, even after the Second World War, Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa was left absolutely landless and was removed from their area, where most of the whānau lived outside—outside—those areas. They lost sites of significance, wāhi tapu, and urupā. Deprived owners—owners were deprived of significant income that they had expected to receive from the 30-year lease.

I think to myself, and I just imagine, that when people look at Māori and say “Oh my gosh, you’re at the bottom of every disparaging statistic.”, I think about how great our ancestors were and the dreams that they had for us, and how they tried to retain their land, how they protested at every turn, and how they set up farms and set up areas for cultivation to trade because they were entrepreneurial—the very first sort of bartering system and trading of goods came from Māori to these new settlers. I think of how you welcomed them in so you could take the technologies and trade. If that had been allowed to continue, what a different place we would be in today, and yet you come today to accept the pittance that the Crown has offered. I am not sure, but sometimes, for me, that feels like it is out of pure frustration that we have come so far, and yet we have to accept so little, but we must go on.

Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, you guys have waited a long time to come to this point, and it has been held up for a time to consider the petition and the struggle of Ngati Takiora. Yes, I travelled there. Yes, I went to listen, because that is our job—to listen and to take things into account. But what is not our job is to determine whakapapa, determine who has the most say, or to determine whether or not people are talking to each other. I am sorry, but that is now your job, and it always has been.

We recognise that that is difficult, and all of us i roto i a Aotearoa katoa [throughout New Zealand totally] come to this point. There has not been a Treaty claim in this House where there has not been a dissenting voice, where there has not been a group of people who feel that their words have not been articulated in the settlement, and where there has not been a hapū who felt that their interests had been ignored. And they ask us, as the Māori Affairs Committee, to make the right decision. And who does that? Not you—the Crown.

The Crown, over hundreds of years, has come to this place and asked us to be poor Pākehā. I cannot sugar-coat it. That is exactly what it asked us to do in legislation, by law, in this country. It left it up to us to prove to it that it did not. It left it up to yourselves to prove to it that its records were wrong, that its actions were wrong. Overwhelmingly, the evidence—which you have to go and search out yourselves, because nobody gives you a hand up in that area—is that it has mistreated Māori for generation after generation after generation.

The list of failures that I started to read—they continue right up until 1958. We can say that, actually, they probably continue today. And yet we come with an eye looking to the future to say “OK. We are where we are, and we’re willing to move on, because we’re resilient, and we’re Māori, and we’re strong, and we thrive, and no matter what happens to us we still stand up and we still take the reins and we still show them that if you have a little bit of faith—just an inch—faith as small as a mustard seed, if you are a biblical type of person, you can move mountains.” And when our people are united, we can overcome all things.

I put it to you Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa that the time is now, and it is within your hands to settle whatever issues are in front of you so that, as a people together, unitedly, you can be strong and move forward and take the reins—for these ones, as Peeni talked about, our tamariki/mokopuna. Too often in this House I see decisions made for the next 3 years, just so we can get popularity points and continue to be the Government—or change it; one or the other. We get sick of one and kick them out; we get sick of them and kick them out. It is the ever-revolving door of the blue and red. But the opportunity is within your own hands to take your own grasp of the future and make decisions for our grandchildren’s grandchildren.

Sometimes I think this House forgets that the decisions we make need to be enduring. The decisions we make need to be looking ahead. We will not be the beneficiaries of this settlement. You and I will not be the beneficiaries of this settlement—they will, and their mokopuna who come after them, for our posterity.

So it is a hard day, it is a good day, and we have finally got to this point. And so quickly, over and over again, we have seen many of our people come through this House and they go from grievance to future, from protest to progress, and switch their eyes to the future for the beneficiaries of tomorrow, our tamariki/mokopuna. So I mihi to you. I mihi to all of you for all of the efforts that you have made on behalf of them, despite the Crown. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Ki a koutou ngā whānau, ngā hapū o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, nau mai, haere mai.

[To you, the whānau and iwi of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, welcome, come hither.]

I stand to take a very short call on the third reading, the final reading, of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I too was one of the Crown representative MPs who came for the signing of your deed with the Minister and with my colleague Nuk Korako. I came out to Ōtangaroa Marae the day before to find the actual place that we were coming to, and it was a beautiful day, and the evening was just as beautiful. The next day we came out and it looked like “Hurricane Husqvarna Chainsaw” had come to your shores, because we had seen some trees that had been cut down.

I suppose that, for me, showed the determination of the many people who are part and parcel of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, who did not like what was happening within the claim bill itself and started to continue to show their objection. I say “Well, good on you.” because, you know, when you get a bill—and it has got to be a hard-fought bill—there will be people in the iwi who will not want to support it. They will want to have their voices heard. When I saw that tree down that somebody had neatly cut into little bits on the side of the road to let our Crown cars through, I looked and I thought: “Well, good on you. Good on the whānau who actually continued on and fought for the people who wanted this bill to go through.” So I want to take my hat off to you, those who were in dissension on the bill and those who continue to carry on—the descendants of Kahukuraariki, iwi, and tribe members and family members. So I just want to say thank you.

I want to say too to the mokopuna of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa that today is, basically, the day that your mātua, your koro, your kaumātua have done the work in behind for, and today we see the handover to you—the future of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. You will lead the iwi into wherever it has good futures and happy futures for you. And I say to you: “Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.”

As I close my korero to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, I want to say: “Go well, be well, and invest well in the future of all of your people.” Kia ora koutou.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā tuatahi, ka tika me mihi atu rā ki Te Minita i tuku i te īnoi ki tō tātou nei Runga Rawa, hei whakatau i a tātou nei wairua, ngā kōrero mō ngā āhuatanga kei mua i te aroaro. Ā, ki a koutou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, tēnei te tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā.

[And so, firstly, it is apt indeed that I acknowledge the Minister who delivered a prayer to our Almighty God to compliment us spiritually and the comments relating to the circumstances before us. And so, to you of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, I endorse the tributes to you at this point in time.]

It is difficult, when Treaty settlement bills come into the House, to be dispassionate to the extent that the process that the members of the Māori Affairs Committee are a part of is scrutinising and, to some extent, trying to understand agreements and negotiations that have already taken place. The process also lends itself towards an opportunity to give all sides of the debate a good hearing, from the first reading to the select committee and those committee stages where submissions are called for. You hear from the negotiators and those who may have dissenting views, and then you try to understand and break down the extent to which those views become critical in order for the bill to proceed. I know that in the way in which the Māori Affairs Committee works there is the genuine intent of utilising the select committee process for the best outcome, given that what we are considering is a negotiated outcome formalised through legislation.

And we are at the third reading stage so, for a large part, many people who come to the House are challenged by whether or not their Treaty settlement is fit for purpose, fully achieves the aspirations of what was intended, and restores hope that those historical interests and those breaches of the Crown can be somewhat remedied as a result of participating in this process. I cannot say it better than has already been outlined by my colleague Adrian Rurawhe: participating in a Treaty settlement process means that to an extent you accept that the process in itself governs some of the ways that iwi need to grapple with some of these issues. But what it can never do—what the legislation, what the Treaty negotiation process can never do—is actually resolve many of the issues that remain within iwi, across hapū, with hapū, and amongst whānau. I think that we would be creating a myth if we thought that the legislative process could restore things that exist outside of this Chamber—more appropriately, back on the marae within hapū and within the iwi.

There have been many times in this House where we have felt that we are ill-equipped to comment on matters of whakapapa. We tend not to comment on matters where there are internal disputes. We try to give people enough of a hearing to feel that they have been listened to within the context of our limitations in the process, but also to give people a sense that there is time within this process for at least iwi and hapū to work out those things, and that perhaps by the third reading we might be some way closer towards letting time take its course and letting those necessary actions that must happen amongst people create some kind of coming together, resolution, and reconciliation. Whether or not that actually happens in reality—and I make a very general comment, not one specifically related to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa—we have to trust that, with the spirit of goodwill and common sense and pragmatism that exists amongst our people but, most importantly, aroha, aroha tētehi ki tētehi [empathy with each other], that there is a glimmer of hope that our good conscience as Māori will determine a better outcome than what a Treaty settlement or legislation could ever deliver.

This is one of the times when it is difficult to comment to a huge degree with any greater knowledge than the people whom I follow, because while I heard the first reading of the bill, I then left the Māori Affairs Committee. Much of the evidence was heard by my colleagues Kelvin Davis and Peeni Henare. But I do want to note a couple of things by way of recognising the nature of the challenge. There are a number of lands that are being vested back to Ngatikahu, and when you look through the list and then contemplate the potential opportunities for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, they look exciting. However, they require significant partnering and investment opportunities with either neighbours or other people who have a like and common cause with Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. That will be a necessary outcome.

This is where, sometimes, the whole redress package may return a lot of properties, but the amount required to invest to get these properties up in a commercial setting requires some innovative thinking. The thing about Treaty settlements is that no matter how large or small they are, wherever they are in the country, the growing contribution of Māori to local and regional economies is being evidenced. So people—private sector, local government—are seeing that, actually, it is really important to try to understand the aspirations of iwi throughout the country, because they are long-term, committed investors in local and regional economies. So that should provide a little window—a small window—for those who are charged with the responsibility of taking the aspiration forward in this particular instance to go out and be assertive about what the opportunity could present if people think in a different space, and it is evident that the vesting of several of the properties could afford that.

In terms of the cultural redress, just looking at it, this secures an anchor for the iwi to be able not only to practically participate in the ongoing care, restoration, and protection of special sites of significance but to repatriate the story back to the whenua and ensure that the next generation, which carries these hopes and aspirations of kaumātua, mātua, and tupuna, is now part of embedding the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa story within the local region in a way that will contribute to the way in which people think about that part of the world. I look forward to seeing the realisation of those opportunities.

Again, it is hard to be dispassionate in these particular bills. To an extent I have been, because I sense there are a number of things that still have to be resolved that remain outside of the context of Treaty settlement legislation. But I have faith that, actually, with goodwill, the spirit of goodwill, and, actually, whakapapa relationships, people will get there very quickly, because the next generation deserves it. The next generation deserves the leadership of today to get over those very significant mountains so that it can move into a more assertive engaging of aspiration in a rapidly changing world. If we do not do that today then we are dooming another generation to carry a burden far too great—far too great.

Nō reira, he iti nāku mō te kete kōrero i waihotia i mua i ō tātou nei i tēnei wā [So what I have left in the conversation kit for us at this point in time is but a mere drop]: tēnā tātou katoa.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Ā, kei te mihi nui, kei te mihi aroha ki ngā manuhiri, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, ā, Te Whare Raruraru o Te Motu. E ngā rangatira mā, kuia mā, e te mana o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, tēnā koutou katoa.

[A huge acknowledgment and a loving one to the visitors; welcome. Come hither to the House of Parliament and the Perplexed House of the country. To the esteemed ones, the elderly womenfolk, and to the integrity of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, salutations to you all.]

I had not intended to take a call in this debate. I have not followed this bill through the select committee process and other processes, but I did want to take a short call, in part just to acknowledge the kind words of Minister Finlayson when he introduced this debate. I am sure he very generously overstates my real contribution to the settlement process, but, nevertheless, over the last 8 years it has been a genuine privilege and a pleasure to be in this House when settlement bills have gone through.

It is of particular interest to me, of course, when bills have gone through for iwi and hapū of Tai Tokerau. We all look forward, I am sure, with longing to the happy day when Ngāpuhi finally settles in this House, and may that day be sooner rather than later.

But today is the day for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. This settlement, like all settlements, is necessary, but few would suggest it is sufficient. It is necessary because we must acknowledge the wrongdoing of the past, and, in the spirit of goodwill, we must seek to offer redress to put right what has been done wrong in the past.

There has never been a bill where the material return was sufficient—the land returned—and the pūtea is never more than a fraction of what was lost in the past, but, nevertheless, it is a commitment that wrong was done. I think, inevitably, that the most powerful and meaningful elements of settlement bills are the cultural redress and the acknowledgment of mana—mana that was never lost. It was not always acknowledged, but the mana was never lost over the land and the wāhi tapu and so on, which is so crucially important to the hapū and to the whānau. But even more so, perhaps, are the apologies—the printed apologies entered into the documents and entered into the Hansard—that the actions of the Crown were wrong and that the claims of the hapū and the iwi and the whānau over generations have been well-founded. Now, in the spirit of goodwill, it is our duty and our great privilege to be able, as parliamentarians and as a Parliament, to offer some redress. I think these settlement bills are often when you see Parliament at its best, because there is always that level of humility, I believe. And, believe me, humility is often a rare quality in this House. Nevertheless, it does express that we are returning something of what was taken, and it is necessary but seldom sufficient.

It is of particular interest that a lot of the wrong that was done relates to pre-Treaty deals that were done, I guess, and transactions that occurred. That is of particular interest to me because, of course, my own Pākehā ancestors were involved in land dealings well in advance of Te Tiriti. By 1830 my Pākehā tūpuna had taken title—had accepted title—to land at Ōkiato, at Manawaora Bay, and, later, in the Hokianga. So I think I have a reasonably clear view that there was often goodwill on both sides, but, equally, there was a lot of wrongdoing. There was a lot of taking, rather than gifting.

I think one of the most sad but also revealing stories within this document is the notion that the Crown at the time considered that the fact that Lord Ranfurly had graced a place with his presence to have a picnic meant that that gave that site sufficient mana to establish a reserve. The iwi generously offered 10 acres, and had 709 acres taken from them. It is incredibly revealing of some of the attitudes and belief systems of the time, and I do hope that is well behind us, and stays behind us, as part of a regrettable past as we look forward to a much better future.

I think that, as ever, these settlements are a gift from the elders, from those who have worked so hard over generations to bring back the mana, to bring back the recognition, and to bring back in some part some material benefit to the people who live in these rohe now and who will live there in the future. If I may be so bold as to lay down a wero—a challenge—to the young people, it is to use that gift well. I say to our young people who will be the beneficiaries of these settlements that if you are guided by tikanga and if you are guided by commitment to manaakitanga and to aroha, you may still make mistakes if you are so guided, but you will not do anything wrong. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 105

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 107, Noes 12.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. It is a real pleasure to have reached this stage, to present the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is an iwi centred on Clevedon with interests in Tāmaki, Hauraki, and Tīkapa Moana, and is a member of both the Hauraki and the Tāmaki collectives.

Since 1989 Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have sought to negotiate the full and final settlement of their historic claims. The raupatu claims of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki were settled through the 1995 Waikato Raupatu settlement, but it took until 2010 for comprehensive settlement negotiations to be commenced. The Crown and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki signed an agreement in principle in 2011, and a comprehensive deed of settlement in November 2015. I acknowledge at once that it has taken a while to get to this stage—and I regret that—because of the close interconnectedness with the Hauraki matters that are not quite settled. But I have the impression that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are a forgiving lot and are pretty pleased that we have reached this stage now.

To those representatives of the iwi here today, nau mai, haere mai e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā rā koutou katoa [welcome, come hither the iwi, voices, and jurisdictions, acknowledgments indeed to you all].

It is a real pleasure to have you in the gallery at last for the first reading of this legislation. It is, obviously, a special day for you and for the iwi as we take the penultimate steps towards resolving this longstanding Treaty grievance. Can I acknowledge those members of the iwi who have passed on during this long journey and could not be here today. There are always those people who have stood behind the claim for many, many years, but when the time comes for the legislation, they have passed on.

I commend the negotiators, the trustees, and all those who work behind the scenes for their tireless work in reaching in this point. I say this at every first reading, but it applies to every settlement: the immense sacrifices that have been made by the people of this iwi to hold the Crown to account for the grievances it has caused should, and will, never be forgotten.

As I do, I will recount the history, because it is important to read into the permanent record of the House just what happened and why we are here today. The Crown has acknowledged, through the deed of settlement, its failure to deal with the longstanding grievances of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in an appropriate way. From 1840 the Crown and the iwi sought to establish mutually beneficial relationships and transacted land that contributed to the development of Auckland and this country as a whole.

The Crown did not always protect the interests in those transactions, and breached its duties towards Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in respect of lands in Tāmaki, eastern Wairoa, Papakura, and the inner Tīkapa Moana islands, including, of course, Motutapu. The Crown broke its promise to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki that it would not confiscate the land of those who did not take up arms against the Crown during the Waikato War. It indiscriminately confiscated a 51,000 acre block in East Wairoa under the New Zealand Settlements Act, in which the iwi had interests.

Around the time the Compensation Court called for Māori to register claims in respect of East Wairoa, a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki rangatira, Ānaru Makiwhara, accompanied the commander of the Waikato native contingent to Tekūiti on business. Prior to his departure, he had not registered a claim for land in the East Wairoa block in which he and his whānau had interests. The commander had obtained an assurance from the Chief Judge that the court would not sit until he and Makiwhara were available to attend the hearing. So what happened? Makiwhara returned to Auckland before the expiry of the 6-month notice period required by the New Zealand Settlements Act to find that the Compensation Court had already sat to hear claims to the East Wairoa block. Despite repeated petitions to Parliament over 44 years, Ānaru Makiwhara did not see the return of his ancestral lands before he passed away in 1927 aged 85. Frankly, in the overall scheme of things, that is a really sad and appalling story.

The remaining lands of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki were alienated to the Crown and private purchasers through the 19th and 20th centuries. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki were left virtually landless with insufficient land for their present and future needs. The loss of communal ancestral lands had a severe impact on the tribal structure, alienating many whānau and their descendants not only from their lands but also from their iwi identity.

The Crown’s apology for these acts and omissions that breach the Treaty of Waitangi will be enshrined in legislation through the proposed bill. I say this every time, and I feel embarrassed to say it but I have to: it is not possible to compensate Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki fully for the loss suffered as a result of the Crown’s acts and omissions, but we hope that the financial and commercial redress provided to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki seeks to recognise those losses.

The settlement will provide financial and commercial redress to the iwi of $12.7 million, including commercial and deferred selection properties. This redress recognises the economic loss suffered by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki arising from breaches by the Crown of its Treaty obligations. The financial and commercial redress is aimed at helping the iwi and providing the iwi with resources to help them develop their economic and social well-being.

The settlement will also provide cultural redress, including the vesting of 16 sites of cultural significance and $50,000 for cultural revitalisation. The cultural redress recognises those traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations of the iwi with places and sites owned by the Crown within the primary area of interest of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

Can I conclude by thanking my ministerial colleagues, the Office of Treaty Settlements officials, and officials from other agencies, particularly parliamentary counsel, for their extensive input in making this settlement possible. Once again I apologise that because of the various complexities associated with the Hauraki Collective settlement, it has not been possible to introduce the legislation as quickly as I would have liked, and I know that the iwi have needed to take various steps.

We are on the right path now. I am sure that the Māori Affairs Committee is really cognisant of the need to resolve the select committee stage of the bill as quickly as possible and get it back to the House, so that it can be passed very quickly in the new Parliament. I want to acknowledge the representatives of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki here today, thank them for being here, thank them for their forbearance—I was going to thank them for their patience, but the response may be “What patience?”, and justifiably so. But I look forward to seeing the bill progress through all its remaining stages as quickly as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o Te Whare. Kāti ake rā, tēnā tātau katoa. Whakaaro ake ana au, he aha te take ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori mō te pānuitanga o ngā pire pēnei nā? Ko te take, tā te mea, ko tātau anō te Māori i tūkinohia e te Karauna ki roto i ngā tau. Anā kua kōrero mai te Minita mō ngā mahi raupatu whenua ki roto o Ngāi Tai mai i Tāmaki, anga atu ki roto o Hauraki, heke iho ki roto i te wāhi a Tīkapa Moana. Nō reira, koinā te take ka ū tonu ahau ki Te Reo Māori kia rongo i te reo i rangona ai e ngā āpiha o te Karauna ki roto i ngā tau i tāhae e rātau i te whenua.

Kāti ngā mihi nui ki a koutou e Ngāi Tai kua tae mai. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, kua kōrero mai te Minita mō ngā mana me ngā whātoronga o Ngāi Tai ki roto o Tāmaki, anga atu ki roto o Hauraki, nā heke iho ki roto o Tīkapa Moana. Haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. Mauria mai ngā aituā maha kei runga i a koutou. Nō reira koutou e ngā aituā, haere, haere, haere. Nāna i kōwhaki ai i te kauwae o tērā e tangi mai rā, o tērā e tangi ake rā, o tātau e tangi atu nei. Koutou e ngā mate, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai. Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau te hunga ora tēnā koutou katoa.

Tuatahi, kua kōrero mai te Minita mō te āhuatanga o ngā take kerēme ki roto i te wāhi o Hauraki. Puta noa i te rohe o Tāmaki-makau-rau me te kī atu ki tēnei Whare, ā taihoa ake nei ko Te Tai Tokerau ka anga tonga nei ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ehara tēnei i te mea ohorere ki a tātau nē? Ehara tēnei i te mea ohorere ki a tātau. Nā te ture i pēnei ai. Nā te ture i tōmuri ai te kerēme a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ki roto i ngā nekehanga o te wā. Ko te ture te take ka kī atu, anei koe me tō taiapa, anei koe me tō taiapa, me kaua kōrua e kōrero atu, me kaua kōrua e mahi ngātahi. Koinā te mate o te ture. Ko te kī atu, anā a Hauraki, anā a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, anā ko Ngāpuhi kei te raki, anā ko Ngāti Whātua ki roto o Tāmaki. Koinā te raru o te ture. Ka kite ake tātau katoa i taua raru ka puāwai mai ki roto i ngā kupu whakapāha a te Minita nei. Koinā te take i tōmuri mai a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ki roto i tō tātau Whare, ki te whakarongo atu ki te pānui tuatahi o tēnei pire.

Ā, e toru ngā wāhanga o tēnei pire. Kua kōrero mai te Minita mō te wāhanga tuatahi e mea nei te kōrero, he rīkoata nei i ngā tūkinotanga a te Karauna ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ki roto i te ture, ki roto anō hoki i ngā pepa nei. Tēnā pea ka whai whakaaro ngā mema Māori o tēnei Whare, i tētahi atu kupu kia kaua e kī a Peeni a “rīkoata” nei. Ka whakaaro ake tēnā ka whakairongia. Ka whakairongia te mana me ngā kōrero o ngā mātua tūpuna ki roto i te ture kāti. Koinā te wāhanga tuatahi o tēnei pire e pā ana ki ngā tūkinotanga a te Karauna ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, me tērā atu wāhanga e whakapāha nei te Karauna mō aua tūkinotanga i a Ngāi Tai ki roto i ngā tau.

Kaua e pōhēhē ko ngā mahi raupatu, nā, ka noho tonu ki ngā tau 1800s kāhore. Kāhore. Ka raupatungia e te Karauna i a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki mai i taua tāima, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Kua kōrero mai te Minita mō te tini o ngā eka i raupatungia e te Karauna. Ahakoa i kī mai a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ki te Karauna i taua tāima, rawa mātau e whawhai ngātahi ana ki roto i ngā pakanga i te wā i eke ai a te koti whero ki runga o Waikato. E aku rangatira, i kite atu ahau ki roto i te wāhanga tuarua o te pire, ka whakahokia e te Karauna i ētahi o ngā wāhi tapu, i ngā wāhi motuhake a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Kua kōrero mai te Minita mō ngā wairere ki roto o Hunua. Ka whakahokia atu tētahi wāhanga mana whakahaere nei ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Kia kaua tātau e pōhēhē, ka tukuna atu te katoa ki tētahi, kāhore. Tā te mea kei roto i te pire, ka wāwāhi nei i te mana whakahaere o taua wāhi a Hunua, ngā wairere a Hunua. I kite atu ahau, ko reira a Ngāti Koheriki, anā a Ngāti Tamaoho, a Ngāti Whanaunga anō hoki. Nō reira a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, ka whai mana anō koutou ki roto i tērā kāinga e kīia nei ko Hunua.

Ko ētahi atu o ngā kōrero kei roto i te pire, hei whakatikatika i ngā mea paku nei o te pire, arā ko te administrative detail nē? Ngā wāhi paku nei o te pire. Kite atu ahau, ka tukuna atu te Geography Board o Aotearoa nei, te tīni i te ingoa. Kīia nei, ka whai tohutō te wāhi e karangahia nei ko Mātaitai. Mātaitai. Kia kaua e Matataitai, kia Mātaitai. Ka kite atu ahau i ngā mema Pākehā o te Whare nei e kata ana, he aha te take e pēnei ai? Anei hoki te take. He mea rerekē te keke, ki te kēkē. He keke, a cake. He kēkē, he armpit, nē? He mea rerekē. Nō reira e tika ana ki roto i te pire, kia whakatikangia ngā kupu ingoa tawhito kei roto o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Anā, ko Mātaitai tēnā.

Huri tū atu ki te wāhanga tuatoru o te pire. Anā ko te mana hoko tuatahi, arā ko te right of first refusal. Kua kite atu ahau ki roto i taku tāima poto ki roto i te Whare nei, ngā tau e 3 kua pahure ake, kua raru te kāwanatanga nā runga i tēnei tūāhuatanga te right of first refusal nē? Te mana hoko tuatahi. Koinā te kupu Māori mō te right of first refusal, te mana hoko tuatahi. Ka kite ake tātau i ngā ture pēnei nā, ka kī atu anā, ka tukuna atu tēnei ki a koe, engari, ka tau ētahi atu kerēme e pā ana ki ngā take Tiriti o Waitangi nei. Ā ka kite atu ā kua whai pānga anō tētahi ki tēnei wāhi whenua. Ka whai pānga anō ki ngā mahi hanga whare ki roto o te tonga o Tāmaki, nē? Koinā tētahi o ngā āwangawanga kei roto i te pire nei. Kāre e kore ka tau ki roto i a mātau te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori. Ko reira mātau āta wetewete, kia whiriwhiria ka pēhea nei tēnei e anga whakamua ai.

I rongo atu ahau i te Minita ka kī atu ki tēnei Whare, $50,000 ka tukuna atu ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, mō te whakapakari i a rātau anō, wā rātau kōrero, wā rātau tikanga. Torutoru noa iho tēnā. $50,000 nahenahe. Torutoru noa iho. Ka kite atu ahau i te rahi o te pūtea ka kī atu anō anā he torutoru anō tēnā. Nā runga i te mōhio, e mōhio ana tātau katoa ki roto i tēnei Whare, he aha te wāriu o ngā whenua ki roto o Tāmaki, ki roto i ngā kāinga o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Ko te hanga whare iāianei nā kō atu i te kotahi miriona tāra mō tētahi whare iti nei. Nē? Koirā te wāriu o te whenua i raupatungia e te Karauna, mai i a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

Nō reira kāti, ko aua take katoa kāre e kore, ka āta whiriwhiria e mātau—rawa ko te kī atu ko mātau—engari ko te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori. Ā muri ake i te Hepetema tēnā pea he rōpū anō tēnā e kawe ake ana i ngā kaupapa o te wā nei. Engari ki roto i tēnei wāhanga te pānuitanga tuatahi ko tāku e kī atu ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, waiho nā atu mā mātau—mā koutou—e āta whiriwhiri ka pēhea nei tēnei e anga whakamua ai. Kāti Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki aku rangatira, tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[I greet the Speaker and all of us here. I am just thinking; why am I only speaking Māori for the reading of these bills? The reason is because we Māori have been ill-treated by the Crown over the years. Well, the Minister has talked about land confiscations within Ngāi Tai, from Auckland across into Hauraki and down into the Firth of Thames. So that’s the reason I am sticking to the Māori language, so the language heard by Crown officers during the years they stole land will be heard here.

I extend a heartfelt greeting you, Ngāi Tai. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, the Minister has spoken of the authority of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki that extends into Hauraki and down into the Firth of Thames. Welcome, welcome, welcome. Bring your many dead with you. We greet and farewell them. Death has wrenched the jawbone of that one mourning over there, of this one just mourning here, of us all mourning here. You, the departed, sleep, sleep, sleep. Let’s return the topic of my talk to the living here, greetings to us all.

Firstly, the Minister spoke about aspects of claims issues in the Hauraki region. Throughout the region of Auckland—and let me tell the House: soon Te Tai Tokerau will also focus southwards into Auckland. This should not be a surprise, should it? This is not a surprise to us. It is like that because of the law. It is because of the law that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s claim is late in the scheme of things. It is the law that says, “Here is you and your fence, here is you and your fence, but do not you two talk to each other or work together.” That is the trouble with the law. It says, “There is Hauraki, and there is Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and there is Ngāpuhi to the north, and there is Ngāti Whātua in Auckland.” That is the problem with the law. We all saw the result of that problem in the words of the Minister’s apology. That is the reason Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are late coming to our House, to listen to the first reading of this bill.

And there are three parts to this bill. The Minister has spoken about the first part of the bill saying that it legally records in these very documents the abuses against Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Perhaps the Māori members of this House are thinking about another word, and that Peeni should not have said “record”. They think that word should have been “carved”. The authority and the history of our ancestors are carved into the bill, that is it. This is the first part of the bill that relates to the abuses of the Crown against Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and the second part is the Crown’s apology for those abuses of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki over the years.

Do not think confiscation is something from the 1800’s only, no. The Crown has made confiscations against Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki from that time right till the present. The Minister spoke of the many acres confiscated by the Crown. This is even though Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki said at the time, we will not take part in the fighting, when the redcoats invaded Waikato. My chiefs—I saw in the first part of the bill that the Crown had returned some sacred sites to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. The Minister spoke about the Hunua Falls. Some control was returned to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Do not think full control was given to it, no; because in the bill, the controlling authority of the Hunua Falls has been split up. I saw that Ngāti Koheriki were there, as well as Ngāti Tamaoho, and Ngāti Whanaunga. So Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, you will have authority again in that home of yours called Hunua.

Some of the other words of the bill are about fixing up minor things in the bill, such as the administrative details—the little bits of the bill. I saw the New Zealand Geography Board’s change of name. It says that the place called Mātaitai now has a macron. Mātaitai. It shouldn’t be Matataitai, but Mātaitai. I see Pākehā members of the House laughing. Why is that? Here’s the reason. Keke is different to kēkē. Keke is a cake. Kēkē is an armpit, is it not? They are different. So it is right that the bill corrects old place names in the area of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. So it is Mātaitai then.

I now turn to the third part of the bill. It is the right of first refusal. I have seen in the short time I have been in this House, the past 3 years, that the Government has difficulty with this matter, the right of first refusal, is that not so? The right to buy first—that is how Māori say the right of first refusal. We can see it in bills like this that state this will be given to you, but other Treaty of Waitangi claims occur, and we see that someone else has a share in this bit of land. There is also the building of houses in South Auckland, is there not? That’s one of the concerns about this bill. No doubt it will land on us, the Māori Affairs Committee. There we will carefully analyse and figure out how to progress this.

I heard the Minister say in this House that $50,000 will be given to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to strengthen themselves, their language, and their customs. That’s just a drop in the ocean. Only $50,000! Too few dollars. When I see the size of the grant I reiterate that it is too small, in the certain knowledge of us all in this House of the value of land in Auckland, and of the homes of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. It’s just over a million dollars now to build a small home, is it not? That is the real value of the land confiscated by the Crown from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

Well, those issues no doubt will be dealt with by us—I should not say by us but by the Maori Affairs Committee. After September, there will probably be another body dealing with Māori matters. But in this, the first reading, this is what I say to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki: leave it for us—for you—to work out how this will progress. So Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, my chiefs, and this House; greetings, greetings to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, e ngā uri o Tōrerenui-ā-Rua. Nō reirā, e Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. Mauria mai he whakaako ki te kaupapa nunui. Nō reira, e koutou rā, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations to you all throughout this House, the relatives of Tōrerenui-ā-Rua. Therefore, acknowledgments and accolades to you collectively, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I acknowledge you all. Bring forth a teaching to the matter of huge significance. So, I salute you all indeed.]

It is indeed my pleasure as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee to speak on the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill in its first reading. I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and its rakatira who are here today along with the members of the iwi. This is a milestone of a journey that has actually been a long time coming. Today marks the beginning of that final stage towards settlement with the Crown—a journey that started in the 19th century.

It is important to note that this is an iwi with interests in both Waikato and Tāmaki-makau-rau. As a Waikato iwi, Ngāi Tai’s claims in the Waikato region were settled through the Waikato raupatu settlement. This bill addresses the claims of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in relation to Tāmaki-makau-rau.

In 2007 the Waitangi Tribunal held an urgent inquiry into the Crown process for offering redress in Tāmaki-makau-rau. The Crown responded with a settlement proposal in 2009, which Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki accepted, and the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust was mandated to negotiate on behalf of the iwi. This in itself was an important step for Ngāi Tai. The actions of the Crown, which I will touch on shortly for the record in this House on the first reading, led to the marginalisation and the invisibility, actually, of Ngāi Tai in their own tribal rohe. The Crown’s acceptance of their status, through this settlement, is indeed of great importance.

Ngāi Tai was an iwi that enjoyed the benefits of early interaction with settlers and who welcomed the arrival of the Crown. Two Ngāi Tai rakatira are believed to have signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Prior to the signing of the Treaty, Ngāi Tai had entered into a land sale with a missionary who had provided that one-third of the block would remain with the iwi for their personal use forever. However, when the Crown got involved it granted a small parcel of land to the missionary and kept the rest as surplus land. Following the protest by Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the Crown paid some compensation to other iwi for the lands that had already been taken from them.

In February 1854 the Crown paid Ngāi Tai £500 to relinquish their claims to any land within Tāmaki. This included the land that the missionary had recorded as being reserved for Māori. As part of that agreement, the Crown promised a reserve for Māori and granted the Umupuia Reserve to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. This reserve was a fraction of the size of the original block and much less than the reserve land that Ngāi Tai was actually expecting. In subsequent land transactions that were allowed by the Crown, the Crown retained approximately 3,000 acres of the Ngāi Tai land, made no assessment of the adequacy of the iwi’s remaining land, and reneged on its promises to reserve a tenth from each transaction for the benefit of Māori. A royal commission of inquiry in 1927 ruled that by spending money on medical and school services for Māori in Auckland, the Crown was fulfilling its tenths obligation, despite not reserving one-tenth of each pre-emption waiver of that land sale. Regardless of the way this differs from what the Crown had agreed, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki assert that subsequent generations have derived very, very little benefit, if any at all, from this.

Around this time Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s shared customary interests in Tiritiri Mātangi Island were also extinguished. On the basis that Ngāi Tai had allowed Europeans to occupy Tiritiri Mātangi Island, the Native Land Court awarded ownership of the island to the Crown. Motutapu, an island of great significance to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, was alienated through the awarding of individualised title to the children of a settler, who had purchased the island, and his Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki wife. The interests of the children, who were deceased at the time, were never properly investigated, and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki remained unsatisfied with the outcome for many, many years.

During the New Zealand Wars, the majority of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki expressed loyalty to the Crown—they expressed loyalty to the Crown—while a small number of individuals joined other iwi in fighting against the land confiscations.

When Parliament enabled the Crown to confiscate the lands of those iwi deemed to be rebellious, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki was not included on the list. However, its land in the Waikato was still affected by that confiscation. Subsequent petitions to Parliament, hearings of the compensation court, and the Sim Commission did not result in any satisfactory outcome for those affected by this confiscation.

Alienation of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki continued well into the 20th century. Just one example: in 1946 the Crown purchased a 225 acre block, to be used for a land settlement scheme for Māori returned servicemen. It also assured the iwi that it would be used for the rehabilitation of only one serviceman, and possibly one other. What actually happened was that the Department of Māori Affairs ran a dairy farm on the land, which employed that serviceman, but it never permanently settled him there, and in 1956 the Crown sold the land to a private purchaser.

Over the many years of alienation and landlessness, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki suffered a loss of its tribal structure, its culture, its traditions, and its identity. This story that is now in Hansard, that is now on the record, is the story of another iwi that deserves, through legislation, compensation, and it also deserves—the fact is that this is the first reading, and the journey that the bill will take through this House is to the second reading, the Committee of the whole House, and the third and final reading, when it has the Royal assent and is elevated into legislation and into law.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee I say that we look forward to those submissions now. Let us begin the final part of the journey. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui. Nō reira, e koutou rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, be resolute, bold, and stout of heart. And so, to you collectively, acknowledgments and accolades, I congratulate you all.]

I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave to correct the vote that we cast for the third reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. There does not appear to be any objection.

CARMEL SEPULONI: It is 29 votes, not 31 votes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is 29 votes in favour.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you.

Bills

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. E tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki koutou katoa kua tae mai ki Te W’āre Pāremata nei, ki te w’akarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire w’akatau i ō koutou kerēme. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, nau mai, hara mai, whakatau mai. Ā, tēnā koutou ngā w’ānau me ngā hapū o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Salutations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time to us all. It is apt that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is acknowledged, and I acknowledge you all who have arrived here in this House to listen to the first reading of this bill to settle your claims. And so, salutations to you collectively, welcome, come hither, welcome. Greetings to you, the whānau and hapū of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and to us all.]

It is an honour to take a call in the first reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations today, this being probably my last contribution to settlement bills in the 51st Parliament. I want to acknowledge also the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the work they do on Treaty settlement bills, and the Office of Treaty Settlements and all of the officers. I want to acknowledge the Crown negotiators, but especially the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki negotiators—anei ahau e tuku mihi atu ana ki a koutou [here I am extending a tribute to you collectively].

I read with interest the historical account in the deed of settlement. After one has read a number of these historical accounts—I try to get the feeling of the particular historical account. The unfortunate part of going through the historical account is that you almost relive or try to imagine what it might have been like to go through those experiences. As a former negotiator myself, I know what that is like. So I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for their generosity in, first of all, allowing their story to be told. I want to acknowledge the magnitude of the impact of such loss.

The chair of the Māori Affairs Committee mentioned that in one transaction, a total of one-third of that land—it was agreed that it would be retained by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The total amount of that land was 83,000 acres—so, one-third of that would have been 27,666 acres, which should have been retained by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Nearly 28,000 acres in Tāmaki-makau-rau—can you imagine what the value of that might be today?

I agree with the kōrero of my colleague Peeni Henare, where he talked about today’s value of that land, but, more important than today’s value, what is actually important is the huge loss of opportunity for the descendants of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki—the loss of opportunity to enhance the economic phase, as it would have been at that time, right up until now. That is really what the purpose is of going through a settlement process. It is about looking at what has happened in the past and trying to find a way forward. That is why I thank Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for their generosity. I think the whole of New Zealand, and in particular Tāmaki-makau-rau, should send their thanks for such huge generosity in bringing this settlement to the House.

I also agree with what Peeni Henare said about the first part of this bill, that it is about expressing the history of what these lands are and the people there. It is about the Crown acknowledging what it has done wrong and then making an apology, also recorded in this piece of legislation. What we need to do is make certain—and I am talking about all of Parliament; not just the Government but every single member of Parliament, now and into the future—that we stay loyal to those acknowledgments and, most importantly, the apology, because unless we do that, one would have to question how valuable that apology is. The way forward on that is for this Parliament to never ever put Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in that position ever again. That is a real tough ask on politicians, because sometimes we forget—and I am not just talking about one side or the other; both sides of this House have done that. So I mihi again to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

Beyond that, the next parts of the bill are really about how we can work together so that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki can move forward for its future generations and provide a legacy to help future descendants of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in their future. The Minister has outlined a number of aspects of this settlement bill, including a number of mechanisms within the cultural redress, which we from the Labour Party support wholeheartedly because, I think, it provides an avenue for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to express their traditional values and to express all the things that are important to them as mana whenua. This is a mechanism that gives them the ability to hold their cultural integrity. So I acknowledge all of the cultural redress items that are within this Treaty settlement.

I also acknowledge the financial redress as well, and I note that the financial redress is not a huge amount, really, in terms of the amount of land lost and the value that it has today. All I can say to that is that it would be great to hear the thoughts of individuals, w’ānau, hapū, and the iwi, through the select committee process. It is an opportunity for everyone to have their say. I ask and encourage members, w’ānau, of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to make a submission. Sometimes, the Māori Affairs Committee does not receive many submissions on settlement bills. What happens is if there is huge opposition to a bill, then the select committee gets lots of submissions, but I would also encourage everyone who agrees with this settlement to have their say and have it recorded in the records of this House. That is a way in which every w’ānau and every hapū can have their say and have it recorded as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for this time. I greet the House in the spirit that these Treaty settlements are discussed in this House. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā, e ngā iwi, kia ora mai tātou. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill here today in its first reading. The journey for this bill started on 26 February—in fact, a bit before that, but on 26 February 2010 the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust, which the 2013 census shows has roughly 498 members. Here we are today on the second to last sitting day of this, the 51st Parliament, and this settlement process is now making its way through the House.

The benefits of the settlement will be available to all members of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, wherever they live. The redress was negotiated by the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust. Some redress in the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki deed of settlement is also jointly provided for with Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Koheriki, and the Marutūāhu Collective. Members of the House have talked to some parts of the settlement. I have also drawn out parts that I thought were particularly poignant. I will not redress what others have spoken to. I would also just comment that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are one of the 12 iwi groups in the Hauraki Collective and one of the 13 iwi groups included in the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.

If we look at Part 1 of the bill, the historical account, much of that has been presented here today, so I will move on to the acknowledgment. I want to highlight several clauses. What I first want to highlight is clause 9(5), and I want to read here: “The Crown acknowledges that by failing to set aside one-tenth of the lands purchased during the pre-emption waiver period for public purposes, especially the establishment of schools and hospitals for the future benefit of Māori, including Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, it breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” I think what struck me next was subclause (10): “The Crown acknowledges that its agent pressured Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to pay their rivals to withdraw challenges to the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki applications for title to the Whakakaiwhara and Urungahauhau blocks.” Subclause (11) then strikes me: “The Crown acknowledges that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki permanently lost the ownership and use of land at Mātaitai despite the Crown’s assurance that this land would be used for the rehabilitation of returned serviceman,” as my colleague Nuk Korako spoke to, “including a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki serviceman, when it purchased the land.” The member Nuk Korako described how that came about.

If we move to the apology, what I found interesting there was—and we have heard from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations several parts of the apology, but it was actually clause (10)(a): “Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sought to establish mutually beneficial relationships with European settlers and the Crown by welcoming them into your role and offering land, but the Crown did not honour this gesture. Instead, its acts and omissions undermined relationships that should have been based on good will and mutual benefit. The Crown broke its promise to protect your interests, confiscated your whenua, and promoted policies which had devastating economic, social, and cultural consequences for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.”

The cultural redress is extensive—a vesting of 15 cultural redress properties. Part 3, “Commercial redress”, talks to commercial property redress and minerals in such associated lands other than what the Crown Minerals Act 1991 allows, and there is also a right of first refusal. As was mentioned by my colleague, the financial redress is $12.7 million, with $500,000 already on account.

I look forward to this bill coming to the Māori Affairs Committee so that we can explore and so that we can take public submissions and hear what the voice of the public says on this bill. We always find that when we take public submissions our final deliberations are always better. They always more informed. Very rarely does the initial bill as it appears end up being its final form, and I think that is a good thing. So I am very much looking forward to this bill coming to the select committee, and, at its first reading, I commend it to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa, kia ora tātau. He mihi nui ki a koutou o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, kua tae mai nei ki tēnei Whare Pāramata, kia ora koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all of us, thank you. A huge tribute to you of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who have arrived here at this House, an appreciation to all of you.]

Tēnā koutou, everybody. I stand here, this mokopuna of Ngāpuhi, Te Rarawa, and Ngati Porou who has had the benefits of living and visiting and enjoying the ancestral whenua, moana, and awa of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for many years. I want to thank the tribal trust in particular for reminding us that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have a longstanding whakapapa and ahi kā relationship over their whenua, over their people, their awa, and their moana, mai rā nō—mai rā nō.

The very name “Ngāi Tai”, I think, has to be acknowledged in this House today and for ever—that “Ngāi Tai” in itself encapsulates a maritime people; ancient navigators and voyagers of the tai, of the coast, of the foreshore, and of the sea. With that, I am very privileged to be able to stand here and speak to this, the first reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill—always, always, particularly with the acknowledgment of Ngāi Tai as ancient navigators and voyagers, acknowledging those who have passed on mai rā nō and also through this Treaty settlement process.

I have been delighted to have a look at the different whenua, the different moana that are part of the Ngāi Tai settlement claim. I think about the paddling that I did over my years as a student. I have been very humbled and privileged to paddle to and sleep on many of the motu, the islands, that are part of this settlement claim. I mention that I have had the privilege, many times, of paddling from Ōkahu to Motuihe, of paddling from Ōkahu to Motutapu, and, indeed, of sleeping on those very islands—sleeping on your motu and your whenua, in among the middle of your harbour and your moana.

It reminds me today in this first reading to speak about the benefits of the generosity that Te Iwi Māori have always afforded to Aotearoa, not just to tauiwi but to we who are not living on our ancestral lands but living on your ancestral lands—the benefits that have been long going, that ensure all people in our communities are able to enjoy your generosity. It is generosity, I might add, that has come through incredible sacrifice, wrongdoing, and injustice. Te Iwi Māori are amazing. Our people are amazing. We have gone through incredible injustice, sacrifice, land theft, genocide; the removal or our Reo, of our whenua, of our moana; the removal of our tūrangawaewae base. And yet here we are today, and here you are today, in this House, having worked so long for so many years to try to do what best you can with the little that the Crown is willing to give back after it has stolen so much of it. Te Iwi Māori are amazing. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are amazing. Our country owes so much to our people.

It is with absolute pleasure that I stand here in this first reading and acknowledge the work that has happened to date and the work that is going to have to happen. I want to remind all of us, while I am talking, as a Ngāpuhi, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Porou descendent living in Tāmaki-makau-rau and living in South Auckland, about the years that I have benefited from visiting—I want to remind us all that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are an iwi with interests centred around Tāmaki-makau-rau, extending out to Hauraki, Coromandel, and, in particular, the coastline harbours of Waitematā Harbour and Hauraki Gulf’s Tīkapa Moana. The primary marae of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is Umupuia Marae at Maraetai in Clendon—I am just making sure that we locate ourselves; where we are talking about, right here in the House.

I, as always, looked at the historical account and tried to get a sense of some of what has happened to Ngāi Tai, particularly how, before the Treaty was signed in Ngāi Tai rangatira alongside rangatira of other iwi, they were involved in land transactions in Tāmaki and the inner Gulf islands—those beautiful islands, those amazing islands. Ngāi Tai consider that their tupuna did not intend to permanently alienate—see, this is funny, this: we talk about our tupuna alienating ancestral lands, as opposed to the Crown stealing them. Of course our tupuna did not intend for our whakapapa connection to be broken with our whenua and, absolutely, indeed, with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

It is said that it is Ngāi Tai’s view that those transactions were attempts by tupuna to foster ongoing connections and relationships with tauiwi. However, between 1836 and 1839, in the 1800s, Ngāi Tai and other iwi negotiated transactions with a missionary for a massive block in Tāmaki. This is where I wanted to learn about what happened with that particular deal—another shady deal. There were 83,000 acres involved in that land transaction, and the missionary wrote that iwi and hapū who had sold the land would retain at least one-third of the block for their personal, ongoing use for ever. The exact science of that transaction has never been established, but the royal commission concluded that it was about 83,000 acres. Now, if we are talking about one-third, then that in itself is supposed to be around 28,000 acres retained for Ngāi Tai for personal use, for ever. From what I can establish, it came down in the end to about 5,500 acres. That is just a small example of the shady deals that happened, in which the Crown retained most of the land as surplus amounting to 78,000 acres. Most of it was retained.

I am probably always going to call out the language that a bill uses, and will just make sure that I put on record here, for the Green Party, in Hansard, what actually happened—because I have got another example here. The language that we use in these bills—I am happy to take the opportunity to give the words from the Green Party, to call it what it is. If I go to clause 9, the Crown’s acknowledgments—and this is going back to the raupatu, when Crown forces were sent into Mangatawhiri in 1863—it says: “(a) after the war, [the Crown] confiscated 51,000 acres of land”. It stole it. Then clause 9 says: “(b) [the Crown] broke its promise”. It lied. I just want to acknowledge that for what it is today, but I look forward to the submissions. I look forward to hearing those stories in more depth, and I look forward to understanding the full impact of what has actually happened to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

Again, the generosity of Ngāi Tai, of Te Iwi Māori, through these settlement processes can never be overstated. Today, who has benefited from the land loss, from the land theft in Ngāi Tai? Who has benefited? My colleague Peeni Henare mentioned the value of houses. Well, all of our whenua is valuable, but, my goodness, under tauiwi terms today? You have got water, moana, reserves—my goodness. The fact that some of our people, some of Ngāi Tai people, no doubt, are without a home, when Ngāi Tai have given so much—that is the justice that we should always be trying to create and look for.

So tēnā koutou Ngāi Tai for being here in this House for your first reading. It is going to be an honour to hear from you all about what has happened and about how we can try—how we can try—to seek enduring justice for your settlements. Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia i tēnei wā ki ngā uri o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, koutou i tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te rā, ki te whakarongo nei i te pānui tuatahi o tā koutou pire, i whakatau i tā koutou kerēme i raro i te mana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā reira, nau mai, haere mai.

[And so, salutations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is but a short stand to endorse the tributes accorded at this moment of time to the relatives of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, to you who have arrived here on the call of the day to listen to the first reading of your bill, to settle your claim under the jurisdiction of the Treaty of Waitangi. Therefore, welcome, come hither.]

Here we have another settlement bill that is a result of not only confiscation but broken promises—and these are words that have certainly been used by the Crown—and I think it is important to remind ourselves and to remind those who are watching and listening to this debate what this is all about. It is to the Crown’s credit that through the terms of this bill it acknowledges the wrong that it has done, and has proffered an apology. It has also proffered a process of settlement and, quite clearly, it is a settlement that at this stage has the support of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill to the Māori Affairs Committee, because it is during the select committee process that we will be able to ascertain the level of support from within the iwi to the proposed terms of settlement that are articulated in the bill. I note that there have been two amendments to the original agreement signed, and I do not know whether this is an indication that perhaps the final agreement has reached the total aspiration of the iwi and that we do not have to go back and make further amendments during the process of seeing this bill through to its final reading.

Having said that, I am glad that those points have been recognised early in the process. I understand that the quantum for this settlement is in the area of $12.7 million and reference has been made to the present-day value of the lands that have been subject to breaches of the Treaty by the Crown—their present-day value. It is not very hard to imagine that in today’s values $12.7 million may seem insufficient. However, again, during the select committee stage we will certainly hear from those who want to participate in that process as to their thoughts.

I think it is important that we actually identify just what the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is defined as. Clause 13(1) states it is: “(a) … the collective group composed of individuals who descend from an ancestor of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki; and (b) includes those individuals; and (c) includes any whānau, hapū, or group to the extent that it is composed of those individuals, including the following groups:”—and I just want to articulate those so that they are on record within Hansard—“(i) Ngāti Te Raukohekohe: (ii) Ngāti Kōhua: (iii) Ngāti Rangitawhia; and (d) includes the following groups, to the extent that they are composed of those individuals: (i) Ngāti Taimanawaiti: (ii) Ngāti Taihaua: (iii) Te Uri o Te Ao.” Clause 13(2) states: “ancestor of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki means an individual—who (a) exercised customary rights by virtue of being descended from—(i) Te Whatatau (Te Whataatao); or (ii) a recognised ancestor of [Ngāti Te Raukohekohe, Ngāti Kōhua, and Ngāti Rangitawhia]; and (b) exercised the customary rights predominantly in relation to the area of interest at any time after [the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi]”.

I also want to make reference to a part of the explanatory note of the bill itself. It says: “… Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki may not receive the shared redress in a timely manner or at all. In other instances, it means shared redress may transfer to all parties before the final group has settled (or potentially might never settle). The Crown considers the risk associated with these provisions to be low.” One might want to ask the question: “What if it does not happen in fact and they never settle?”. It also states: “The benefits of the settlement will be available to all members of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, wherever they live.” I can assure those who might be listening that we will certainly explore that particular aspect of this bill during the select committee process.

Finally, I want to say that New Zealand First will certainly support this bill to the select committee and looks forward to the opportunity of hearing submissions from those who want to make a submission to this process. I notice that the census figures are just under 500 people and that the proceeds of the settlement are available to any Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki uri wherever they live. I think that is certainly a departure from what we have seen in other settlements and I would certainly be asking how we see that in practice. But be that as it may, I just want to take this opportunity of thanking or congratulating those who have been responsible for bringing this matter on behalf of your iwi to this stage, and I look forward to further discussions in regards to the bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to conclude with this, as this may be the last time I have the opportunity of addressing you as Deputy Speaker of this House. I wish you well in the future as you depart this House. I just wanted to have on record that on behalf of New Zealand First we wish you all the best for the future. Tēnā koe.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Mana Whakawā, e taukotohia ngā mihi kua mihia ki a koe i roto i tō tūrunga i a koe e whakahaere nei i ngā mahi o Te Whare, ā, tēnei kua tata ki te wā mutunga mōu. Nā reira, kai te pīrangi mātou o Te Pāti Māori ki te mihi atu ki a koe i roto i ō mahi, tēnā koe Chester Borrows, kia ora.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, I endorse the tributes accorded to you in your role, as you administer the affairs of the House, and, as this nears the end of the time for you, we of the Māori Party therefore wish to pay a tribute to you in your responsibilities. Well done, Chester Burrows, and thank you.]

Well, I am going to dismiss with all the mihi, but suffice to say I tautoko everybody and everything that everyone has said, because I have done some figures. In the bill it says: “The Bill comprehensively settles the historical Treaty claims of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki resulting from acts of omissions by the Crown before 21 September 1992.” So I added up all the little bits of land just, you know, on the back of my Post-it, that this bill acknowledges that you have lost. I have come to a figure of about 152,560 acres of land from Tāmaki-makau-rau—round about. I checked it with the Minister and he said I was in about the right area.

So then I thought: “OK, how much does it cost to buy a house in Tāmaki-makau-rau nowadays?”. Apparently, by the news, it costs about $1 million on average, and if we think that might be on a quarter acre section you know it is not. You know it is on a sliver of land squashed up between two other houses. But let us be generous—let us be generous and pretend it is on a quarter acre section. If we extrapolate—that is a flash new word I have learnt from being in Parliament, by the way—that out, if we multiply that out, over the 152,000 acres that you have lost, my figure comes to $610 billion—billion dollars—in today’s terms.

Let us not even add in the loss of earnings throughout the last 175 years. Let us not go there. Let us not be so harsh as to add in the loss of waterways or let us not even go so far as to talk about the decimation of your people and your language and your cultural archives, through oral traditions. If I read this properly, what has happened is that not only did you lose the land but your people were scattered across the four corners of the area. In the last census, I think it was something like 400 people—am I right—claimed to be of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Did I read that right—498. So about 500 members. Who knows whether they are from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, if your people have been decimated and left landless?

I know that in Wairarapa, when we lost our language, we lost our history—completely. We had, because of the good grace of our tūpuna, recorded our history in 120 volumes of manuscript that we could not read because we had no Reo. The people who came to Wairarapa from Ngāti Porou, from Tūhoe, and from Ngāpuhi, who were married into the area and who came to settle in Wairarapa and who taught in our own kōhanga reo—they did not know our stories. We loved them because they brought Reo back to us so that we could find our stories.

But when we grew up in our rohe, we did not know whether we were Rangitāne or Kahungunu for so long, and, in fact, thought we were pretty much just Kahungunu—just going to say that right now, since they are all in the Whare. But my uncle tells me I cannot split myself in half. I have a leg in each waka—that sounded not quite the way it was intended. But here is the point. We had no idea about our ancestors.

It was not until I went to kōhanga reo, having had the most amazing Pakehā education that people would pay good money for—just by accident, I ended up in Christchurch Girls’ High School. People would move into that area to get that education. But not until I went to kōhanga reo and learnt Te Reo Māori did I find out that I did not come from “Te Wit”. I came from Te Whiti, and that did not mean I was from Taranaki. It was Te Whiti o Tutawake. And who was that? He was a man who crossed the river to save his sister, Tauraharakeke, and bring her back to good mental health—because she had taken herself off to kill herself in the bush—and to keep her safe. Instead of him, he whakatū tāne nō Tūtewake, he toa—[be a man of Tūtewake stature, a warrior.]—the making of a man. If you want to be the man, you need to be like Tutawake, the warrior who knew how to look after his family. I did not know about that until I was well into my 30s—last year.

But I can imagine—I can imagine—what it is like for the 500 people who have found themselves and connected their whakapapa back to their whānau, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I can imagine exactly what that feels like, to have your language and your culture and your whenua ripped away, and to come to this point and settle for $12.7 million when you should have got $610 billion—can we just put that on the record. I mihi to you because, again, we see another iwi come to this House and accept a pittance—accept a pittance—for the decimation of their people.

You know, never mind the land—we lost the land. But without land, without whenua—Meka Whaitiri says to me all the time, that we cannot have tangata whenua without whenua. That is in regard to another thing we argue about, but anyway. A pittance.

We turn around from being the people of protest and we become the people of progress. We put it behind us and we stand up in front of all the naysayers who look at our people and see us as a deficit, and we turn around and say: “We rise, we thrive, we strive, and we’re still here.” And you are still here.

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki—man, it must be tough. I drive up there through that city all the time now. I had never been to Tāmaki-makau-rau so often, except in the last 3 years. I drive past those flash houses. One of my nannies was with me one time, and she goes: “Is this what they call rich people’s State housing, where they all have a flash house and live on top of each other and the houses all look the same?”.

I congratulate you on coming to this point and for taking the courage to say that, well, enough is enough, but we have to move on. We document our history for our tamariki mokopuna, so that they will never be lost as we were lost, so that they will never have to search as we have had to search, and so that they will have their future, which they can lay out for their babies, and make the decisions now that will affect our grandchildren’s grandchildren. We do not do this for ourselves; we do this for them.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge all of your ancestors who have passed on, some of whom may never have known that they were from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki because with the decimation of culture and whenua comes the loss of language, and the decimation of that is the loss of whakapapa. If we do not know it, how can we claim it?

In the story that I told about Tutawake, there is another little whakatauki that says—do not correct my Reo after this—ka taea te wāwāhi i te taura harakeke engari, te taura whakapapa, te taura tangata, ka tū mō ake tonu atu [the flax cord can be taken apart but the genealogical, the mankind cord, the kinship link remain forever and ever].

The taura tangata is the whakapapa that binds us, no matter what, and when we search out our ancestors we are connected for all time and all eternity. We are bound to our whenua and we are bound to each other and we are bound to make decisions together, collectively, for the betterment of all our people. So I mihi to you. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātau katoa. He mihi tuatahi ki Te Minita Take Māori, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, mō tōna karakia mō tātau i tēnei ata, nō reira, kei te mihi ki a ia. Ā, e te iwi, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, nau mai, hara mai, hoki mai ki tō tātau Whare, Te Whare Mīere o Aotearoa, nō reira, tēnā kou.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations at the same time to us all, members of this House. A tribute firstly, to the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell for his prayer this morning, I acknowledge him. And so to the iwi, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, welcome, come hither and return to our House, the Beehive of New Zealand. Therefore, salutations to you collectively; welcome, greetings to you collectively; come hither and accolades to you all.]

It is indeed a proud moment for me, as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, to stand and make a small contribution on this significant day for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Can I first acknowledge the Ngāi Tai people, the negotiators, for all the mahi that you have done. It is not an easy process to navigate when you have had such a very challenging history at the hands of the Crown. I am not going to traverse your history, but I want to acknowledge your history. I want to acknowledge your stories, and I especially want to acknowledge the hard mahi of your negotiators.

As a former negotiator—and I just want to mihi to my sister here, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who just successfully got her Ngāti Maniapoto to an agreement in principle yesterday—along with my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, we have had the experience of being Treaty negotiators ourselves. So I wanted to say that it is easy to sit on the outside and make suggestions on how you can improve it; it is harder when you are at the table, trying to battle over it with the Crown.

So I want to say that I absolutely believe that our people deserve more when we look at the mass land losses that we have achieved at the hands of the Crown, but I just wanted to stand and mihi to you—mihi to you for your support, your generosity to the people of Tāmaki, and your patience. I note that you signed your deed of settlement 3 months short of 2 years ago, and so I want to say to all members in this House, again—the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations probably has very good reasons why, but I cannot understand why we have to wait for almost 2 years before we have first readings. So I am glad I am standing here to acknowledge the achievement of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in terms of your special circumstances, in terms of the redress that you have got here, and I do want to wish you well as we get this bill through the House.

By way of explanation, just very shortly, this is the first reading. It is important that all members of this House scrutinise every piece of legislation before it is passed into law. So this is the first reading. Then it will go off to select committee, and we encourage—and I want to support other members of this House to encourage—the Ngāi Tai people to submit. The negotiator has brought us this far. Please do not reserve yourself if there are any issues surrounding the Treaty settlement. Use the select committee process to raise any issues.

But there is just one point I wanted to leave, in my contribution, for the Māori Affairs Committee. So we have the first reading, which we are just doing right now. The bill will go off to the Māori Affairs Committee, where it is publicly scrutinised. So anybody around the country can make a submission on this particular piece of legislation. The committee then comes back to this House and reports what people presented to it—the good, the bad, and the indifferent. Then we go through the second reading of the bill, and, of course, the third and final reading is when your bill becomes law and the parts of your deed of settlement are enacted by that piece of legislation.

So my message, in celebrating Ngāi Tai’s achievement in getting to a first reading, is that when I look at the particular parts of their bill—I have raised this before in previous contributions around Treaty settlements—is about when we get to shared redress. In this particular settlement, we see that there is—and I would expect, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, for there to be shared interests. But I do believe that it is still the domain of the Crown to come up with good frameworks in which we deal with shared redress. I do not believe we have it quite there. I know there are actual examples of iwi that have actually taken out the interest and decided to discuss it and determine how they share that among themselves.

So my point here to the Māori Affairs Committee members, when we are addressing this particular Treaty settlement for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, is that we should not examine just what the shared redress is about. My plea to the Māori Affairs Committee members is to look at best practice—at best practice—and ask for advice from officials on where it has worked successfully. I think sometimes we leave that up to the respective iwis, and it kind of makes the process a bit more difficult. So all I am asking, Mr Deputy Speaker, through you, is that select committee members on the Māori Affairs Committee do look at best practice models to inform Ngāi Tai’s settlement, and I know that there will other settlements that are also sharing the issue around shared redress.

So that is my contribution to this—not to underdo or undercook my celebration for Ngāi Tai being in the House today or that we have got there. For me, it is how we use your particular settlement and improve those that are coming behind you, and I definitely see that in the shared redress components for when we are dealing with Treaty settlements in this House. I proudly commend this first reading to the House. E te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. On 26 September 2015, I was welcomed on to Te Aute College in the Hawke’s Bay for the signing of this deed of settlement. The hospitality shown that day to the Crown party was outstanding, and I am honoured to extend a warm welcome to the members of Heretaunga Tamatea who are here in Parliament today for the first reading of their bill. I am so very pleased you are here.

I acknowledge members of Heretaunga Tamatea who have passed on while the hapū pursued justice. Many of the original claimants who filed Wai claims have died. There are too many to name, but all of them are significant—more recently, Eru and Nuia Smith, who filed the earliest claims, Wai 69 and Wai 71, and Ngāmoa Gillies, who died shortly after the ceremony at Te Aute in 2015.

Can I acknowledge Ahi Robertson. She was raised by her grandfather, who was a towering figure in Heretaunga Tamatea history. He was a sentinel voice against the injustices that arose over Aorangi and Whatumā. Ahi Robertson has achieved what her grandfather started with Lake Hatumā returning to its original name of Lake Whatumā, and the reserve being returned to Heretaunga Tamatea as part of the settlement.

The injustices that arose over the Aorangi block have been addressed, and I commend the work of Roger Maaka and Tīpene Hēperi, who so ably negotiated the memorandum of understanding between the Crown and the trust board. I acknowledge the mandated negotiators of Heretaunga Tamatea, particularly my old friend Liz Munroe, the lead negotiator—she was very well taught by me; she was my law clerk—and her colleagues David Tīpene-Leach, Peter Paku, and Brian Morris. The negotiators were supported by He Toa Takitini, the mandated entity. Their approach to negotiations was reflected in their name—He Toa Takitini—“Our strength is in unity”. This was so evident during the negotiations and, since the deed was signed, in their approach to resolving, for example, the issues concerning the Aorangi Māori Trust Board. The chair of the settlement trust, Elizabeth Graham, and the board of trustees are going to take Heretaunga Tamatea into the future.

I have an idea that some members of Ahuriri hapū and Ngāti Hinemanu me Ngāti Paku Heritage Trust are here today. I know that Heretaunga Tamatea have really appreciated your support so that we could have this first reading before the general election. I also want to acknowledge Pat Snedden and Lil Anderson, chief negotiators for the Crown, and I want to thank my colleagues, their agencies, and this House for the support received for this Treaty settlement.

Let me say something about the journey to settlement. In 2003 the overwhelming majority of tribunal claimants in the tribunal’s southern Hawke’s Bay inquiry district agreed to file a comprehensive statement of claim in the tribunal. The mandate for He Toa Takitini to represent Heretaunga Tamatea in negotiations was recognised and terms of negotiations were signed in December 2011. The agreement in principle was signed on 11 June 2014, and, as I have said, the deed of settlement was signed on 26 September 2015.

Before 1840, Heretaunga Tamatea was a community—independent and self-sustaining hapū—with an economy and polity consistent with tikanga Māori of the time. In the late 1840s, rangatira offered land to the Crown to secure mutually beneficial relationships with the Crown and European settlers. However, by the end of the 1850s the rangatira and hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea were making collective arrangements to halt further purchasing after the Crown had acquired more than two-thirds of their rohe in a manner that created significant tensions between hapū and that culminated in armed conflict and deaths.

In the 1850s, the Crown used secret transactions and other divisive tactics to purchase huge areas of Heretaunga Tamatea land, often without the knowledge or consent of local customary owners. In the 1860s, the Heretaunga Tamatea hapū used their remaining lands to produce goods for trade and to generate significant rental income, but the Crown’s introduction of native land laws facilitated large-scale land purchasing by private parties in the 1870s and 1880s. These dreadful land laws facilitated the further dispossession of the Heretaunga Tamatea hapū rohe. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was the same old story: only a fraction of Heretaunga Tamatea lands remained in Māori ownership, yet the Crown continued to purchase land, often through measures that placed considerable pressure on individual owners. So, by 1930, the Heretaunga Tamatea hapū were left with barely a shadow of their whenua. Today the hapū speak of being a tangata without whenua, and more than half of all Heretaunga Tamatea Māori now live outside their traditional rohe.

The settlement includes a historical account that sets out the relationship between the Crown and Heretaunga Tamatea since 1840, and a formal apology from the Crown for its many actions and omissions that have breached the Treaty and caused harm to individuals, whānau, and hapū. The settlement also provides for, among other matters, the vesting in Heretaunga Tamatea and the gifting back to the people of New Zealand of the Cape Kidnappers Gannet Reserve and the Cape Kidnappers nature reserve. This in itself gives this House an insight into the generosity of spirit that Heretaunga Tamatea has shown in the agreement that has been reached.

The settlement includes $100 million in financial and commercial redress for Heretaunga Tamatea, and the purchase of a 56.66 percent share of the Kāweka and Gwavas Crown forest licence land. A further $5 million will be set aside to support the long-term sustainability of Te Aute College, and the particular negotiators can be thanked for raising that at the eleventh hour. I will not tell you what exactly my purple prose was when it was raised, but we got there, and so we should, because it is a great college. Many of its lands are trapped by those ghastly Glasgow leases, and it is a college that has made a huge contribution to New Zealand. At the risk of upsetting the St Stephen’s College people, I have to say it has probably made the greatest contribution: Sir Peter Buck; Sir Apirana Ngata, a great Nat; Sir Māui Pōmare, a great Nat; and Sir Pita Sharples, not a great Nat but a good guy. The school has a long and proud tradition of producing outstanding leaders, and I know that this is a great investment for the future.

So this is a significant milestone, and the Crown looks forward to continuing to work with Heretaunga Tamatea to steer this legislation, enacting this settlement through Parliament. Before I commend the bill to the House, can I simply address some of my colleagues, because although it is late in an election year and bipartisanship is fast going west, as it were, for obvious reasons, I want to thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their work on this very important take over the last 3 years. It has been a real team effort by some great parliamentarians. Can I particularly acknowledge Catherine Delahunty, who leaves us in a few days. I have never seen such commitment to Treaty issues. She is a friend of mine—you can have friendships across the Parliament—and I wish her all the very best for the future.

Finally, can I acknowledge Kennedy Graham, who is a true man of principle, a real class act. I have quoted this before: John F Kennedy once said it takes courage to stand up to your enemies, but it takes real courage to stand up to your friends. The price that he has had to pay has been enormous. He will not have the opportunity to be a Minister, but he will be remembered for much more. He is a fine parliamentarian, a man of principle, a champion for addressing the hard issues of the 21st century—not a bad parliamentary epitaph. I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E te iwi o te hau kāinga, tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa kua tae i tēnei wā. Harikoa te ngākau, ka kitekite i a koutou mō tēnei wā. Nō reira, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, ōku rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, haere mai, tēnā koutou, haere mai, tēnā koutou katoa.

E ngā mate kua wehe ki Te Pō: Uncle Dave, Wati Stone, Tom Tuhi, Bossy Mako, Auntie Kate Hakiwai, George Morris, ngā mea, ngā mate o ia marae, o ia hapū o Heretaunga Tamatea, haere atu rā, haere, haere, moe mai rā. Kāti, anei te mihi ki a koutou katoa i tēnei wā.

[To you, the home people, I greet you all affectionately who have arrived here at this moment. The heart is elated at seeing you collectively for this time. Therefore, to the authorities and languages, my esteemed ones of a hundredfold and others, acknowledgments to you collectively, welcome, accolades to you collectively, come forth and congratulations to you all.

To you, the deaths that have departed to the void: Uncle Dave, Wati Stone, Tom Tuhi, Bossy Mako, Auntie Kate Hakiwai, George Morris, the ones and the deaths of each marae and of each hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea, depart indeed, go forth, journey on, rest there indeed. Enough, here is the formal tribute to you all at this time.]

It is indeed an honour, and I had best be on my best behaviour, because I have got a few aunties up there in the audience, but it is an absolute honour to stand in this House to acknowledge the work, to acknowledge the special day of our whānau, Heretaunga Tamatea o Ngāti Kahungunu. Can I first acknowledge the negotiating team: Peter Paku, Brian Morris, and, of course, the very formidable—and I am not too sure, Minister Finlayson, whether actually you had all to do with it, because I think Liz is a formidable woman by herself—Liz Munroe. Kei te mihi ki a koutou katoa [I acknowledge you all] for the mahi that you have done to bring us thus far. I want to acknowledge He Toa Takitini taumata, our kaumātua who for many years have given the wisdom and a guiding hand throughout this process. Kei te mihi ki a rātau.

[I pay a tribute to them.]

I want to acknowledge Dr David Tīpene-Leach, the chairman of He Toa Takitini. David, again, your leadership through this process, through trying times, stands testimony that we are here today, so ngā mihi ki a koe, e te rangatira [salutations to you, esteemed one].

And, of course, Liz Graham, our current chair of the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust—I want to acknowledge Liz’s work and all the board members who have helped get us this far.

It is a day of celebration. Even though this House is rising tomorrow, I am just so pleased that we are able to have this first reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. I am not going to traverse what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has talked about, but what I do want to say in this House and go on record and quote from the deed of settlement about is the beauty of this rohe of Heretaunga Tamatea. I want to acknowledge the 23 marae of Heretaunga Tamatea: Houngarea, Korongatā, Mangaroa, Rākautātahi, Tapairu, Waimārama, Kahurānaki, Matahiwi, Ōmahu, Rongomaraeroa, Taraia, Waipatu, Kairākau, Mataweka, Pourērere, Ruahāpia, Te Āwhina, Whatuiāpiti, Kohupātiki, Mihiroa, Pukehou, Rūnanga, and Te Rongo-ā-Tahu.

The rohe of Heretaunga Tamatea—“Considered the richest, most fertile soils in all of Aotearoa, the traditional tribal rohe of Heretaunga Tamatea comprises 1.475 million acres spread amongst lofty mountain ranges, deep, contouring valleys and large, vast alluvial plains with five main river systems fuelled by the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha aquifers. The rohe of Heretaunga Tamatea is aptly described by ‘te kanohi hōmiromiro o te hāro o te kāhu’ (the all seeing eye of the hawk in flight). It starts on the coast at Te Kauwae-a-Māui/Cape Kidnappers and follows … to the [river]mouth of the Tūtaekurī River. It then [goes] westward … to the foothills and eastern slopes of the Ruahine Range. Heading south, it embraces the Kāweka and Gwavas Forests to the headwaters of the Manawatū River in the south. It then crosses eastwards to the coast at Te Poroporo and turns northwards up the coast embracing Parimāhu, passing one of the nation’s outstanding landscapes—Kohinurākau, Te Mata-o-Rongokako and Kahurānaki, the sacred mountain of the rohe—to arrive back at Te Kauwae-a-Māui/Cape Kidnappers.” I bring this pōhatu, called Parimahu, gifted by our whanaunga Robert Rōpiha when I first came into this House. This watches over me when I am in this place, and I wanted to bring that out, to our whanaunga who have joined us here today.

Before the arrival of Europeans, a system of wetlands, swamps, and lakes extended from the Heretaunga Plain, through the Pekapeka wetlands and the Ngā Puna-ā-Tara, to the Whatumā lake system in the south. This, together with the area’s coastal fisheries and extensive bush, provides extremely rich sources of food, as well as medicine and materials for the region’s people. The names of the rivers, streams, natural features, fauna, and flora of Heretaunga Tamatea illustrate the long association between the land and the people it sustains. The significant wealth and prosperity of Hawke’s Bay has been sourced from both the lands and the waters of the rohe, and from the labour and the generosity of generations of the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea.

This generosity is the primary example of the tikanga or manaakitanga, the customary practice of welcoming and embracing guests to our land—our participation, with distinction, through several colonial and imperial wars, our major contribution to industrial, pastoral, agricultural, and horticultural development. Our iconic academic, artistic, sports, and, I would like to acknowledge, our beauty and acclaim is evidenced in the hosting of Matatini at the beginning of this year—and kei te mihi to all our marae of Heretaunga Tamatea and Ahuriri who came and offered manaaki ki te tangata to our visitors around the motu. Of course, the crowning of our niece Harlem-Cruz Īhāia as Miss Universe New Zealand, all the way from Ahuriri, all the way from our home people—a big mihi to us all on this special day.

These lands, these people, nourished many who lived there and many who came here. It is not surprising that through the actions of the Crown, the acts of omission, many of our people lost their lands. So it is right that the Crown makes some amendment. Let us be clear about that—makes some amendment.

I want to also acknowledge the discussion from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations about the $5 million to Te Aute College, and that will be another kōrero at our second and third readings. I want to say thank you to you, Minister Finlayson, for the contribution towards Te Aute College. I know that there is still some work to be done around the lands of Te Aute, but you have shown, with good grace, that you are open to entertaining the settling of the lands around Te Aute College. I wanted to say that particularly on behalf of my father, as an old boy, and also to the many leaders whom you described who have come out of that iconic school.

In the time that I have left to contribute to this bill, it is, like I said, an absolute honour to stand here to acknowledge the hard work of the negotiators, and to welcome our people from home. It is your day—it is your day. It is important that we ensure that those—there will be some of us, we all have them in our whānau, who will disagree with what is transpiring here. All I want to say is, ka aroha ki a rātau [I sympathise with them].

This is an opportunity to come before the select committee to have your say—have your say. This is the beauty part of this Parliament, that it is open to everybody to have their say, and I encourage those who may not have felt that this is the right thing to do to come before the select committee and let your feelings be known.

I want to end, again, as we close up the 51st Parliament—this is my fourth year. We will all be leaving this place to take on another battle. I want to acknowledge those who are leaving us, who have had their final speeches in the House. I am going to send good wishes to them all. I want to wish you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, the very best on your journey. To all members of this House, thank you for making the 51st Parliament a very enjoyable one. I wish you well on the hustings. Go well. God bless. Ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa, tēnā tātou. I commend this bill to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, tēnei te mihi, e nau mai, haere mai te iwi o Kahukunu-mātaki-rau, Ngāti Kahungunu. Nō reira, mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa e huihui ā-tākata. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations to you all throughout this House, I greet and bid you welcome. Welcome to the people of Kahukunu-mātaki-rau, Ngāti Kahungunu. Therefore, bring forth your teachings to the matter that brings people together. I acknowledge you all.]

It is indeed a privilege accorded to very few of us to speak on auspicious occasions like this—on the occasion of the first reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. I stand here as a proud son of Kai Tahu. I stand here as a proud old boy of Tīpene. I stand here also as a proud father of a son who went to Te Aute College. If I go back before my parliamentary career, up there in the gallery I see some faces whom I was honoured to take across to North Africa and to Italy from the 28th Māori Battalion D Company, or Ngāti Walkabout, from Ngāti Kahungunu. I stand here today to acknowledge all of that and also as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

In saying that—I need to do this for the record—I will go through and highlight again the important parts of this Treaty settlement bill. I was there that day at Te Aute when we signed the deed of settlement, and now this is the start of the journey of your bill—of this bill—through Te Whare Pāremata. This bill settles the historic treaty claims of a large group of hapū that occupy, and continue to occupy, the rohe of Heretaunga Tamatea in Hawke’s Bay.

Naturally, I would suggest that the most notable of these hapū would be a name very familiar to me, Ngāi Tahu ki Takapau, but, actually, this is a collective of many hapū working in harmony together for the benefit of all—for the benefit of all. It is real kotahitaka in motion, and that is manifested in the inspiring motto for this group reflected in the name of the representative entity, He Toa Takitini. Our strength is in unity. If that is not kotahitaka, I do not know what is. So kia ora for that particular part of this process, which is actually ensuring that the waka is being hoe-ed so that we get to the final end, when that happens in the third reading.

The hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea encountered Pākehā very early, coming into contact with the Endeavour in 1769, when several men lost their lives at the hands of the European sailors. They had contact with the Resolution 4 years later, when they traded cloaks and a pou toki for goods and foods, and that went on to form an important part of the food economy of Heretaunga Tamatea.

What a fascinating part of the history of the first contact with Ngāti Pākehā, and also the way that it was used, when we look at the use of that fertile and beautiful land of Heretaunga Tamatea. The hapū always sought to remain friendly, and this part, to me, is the essence of the beautiful korowai, or cloak, of Ngāti Kahungunu. It is that friendliness and passiveness that they have, with which they extended the hand of friendship and the hand of a people whom I thought were actually the ones who had that real commercial sense of entrepreneurship. That was part of relationships that were reflected by that. So that is why Kāi Tahu—tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o te waka o Tākitimu [this is the tribute of the relative of the Tākitimu canoe]. So maybe that is how we all get it, possibly through Kahungunu, Kāi Tahu—who knows? But that is a good reflection of what happened in the historical account.

In the 1840s, local rakatira wanted to attract more settlers—and this is the other part of this—in their rohe to increase their economic opportunities. So what did they do? They hoe-ed their waka to Wellington to offer land to the Crown. The Crown set about arranging this, but told Māori that the real payment for their lands was not the money but the advantages of civilisation that settlers would actually bring, including superior schools and the enhanced value of the remaining lands. The initial planned sale was not completed due to differing assessments of the value, but discussions about offering land to the Crown soon recommenced after an extensive negotiation.

What we see there today, though, is the fact that along with that entrepreneurship, there is that incredible value around how important education is, and that is manifested again in the great college that you actually have in Heretaunga Tamatea. Unfortunately, at the time of the sale, the Crown reiterated the benefits of civilisation that Māori could expect to enjoy. This large sale—particularly the Waipukurau purchase—was at least negotiated relatively openly, with the exception of the extra area of the land added right before the sale.

There is another interesting part of this. The next land sales became known as ngā hoko tāhae, or the secret sales, when the Crown negotiated with very few rakatira in Wellington, and some of the deeds of sale had five or fewer signatories. So we start seeing the unfortunate aspects of the trust that was actually compromised by Ngāti Pākehā towards Ngāti Kahungunu, and, as they say, a lot of it—the rest of it—is actual history. But what happened is that we then see all of the negative effects of the strategy, even the caution by some of its own officials about purchasing land where ownership was disputed. We see, as we come through the historical account, that then we have the disputes of ownership of title that was sold without the consent of all of the owners—only by a few—so even when the Crown has acknowledged the things that have happened, it was an unfortunate situation.

We have heard today in other Treaty settlements about the role of the Crown, and it was despicable in a lot of these things. But what we need to understand today is that the role of the Crown is to actually try to right those wrongs. It cannot do all of it, but at least it can do what it can do under the auspices of being able to have at least the apology, the historical account, and then, after that, the commercial redress as well, which is part of it.

Within the 1 minute and 10 seconds remaining, what I want to also do is say that this is my last speech in the House as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the 51st Parliament. What better way to say farewell to this 51st Parliament than to have the iwi of Ngāti Kahungunu here and to be able to be part of this first reading. The other thing too is acknowledging all of my members on the Māori Affairs Committee. One thing that we always did 3 years ago was we said “Let’s park our political affiliations at the door, and let’s get on with what’s good for our people.”, and that has been our kaupapa for 3 years. That is a reflection of what we have here today.

So this bill, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, has started its journey, its hīkoi, through the House of Te Whare Pāramata. I wish you all well, and, hopefully, if I am honoured to be back here again, I look forward to continuing the progress of this bill. Nō reira, e koutou rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[And so, to you collectively, I acknowledge and commend you collectively and pay a tribute and salutations to you all.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ā, kāti, “Tihewa mauri ora ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama!” E ngā hapū maha o Heretaunga Tamatea, e Ngāti Kahungunu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, ki te ana o te raiona e takatū nei. Nō koutou tēnei rā, ko tēnei rā whakahirahira.

Nō reira, me mihi atu ki a rātau kua whetūrangitia, ngā mate i hinga rā, e hinga mai nei, haere koutou, haere koutou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātau te hunga mate ki a rātau, apiti hono, tātai hono, ko tātau te hunga ora, ki a tātau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nō reira, ko hau tēnei tā koutou whanaunga, ko Ngāti Pāhauwera tēnei e mihi atu nei, e tangi atu nei ki aku mātua tini karanga maha, nō reira, e aku whanaunga tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ngā mātāwaka o te motu, tēnā tātau katoa.

[And so, “Behold the breath of life to the light of dawn and to the world of light!” Salutations to you, the many hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea and of Ngāti Kahungunu, acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all. Welcome and pay homage to Parliament and to the lion’s den standing here at the ready. This day is yours, this magnificent day.

Therefore, let us pay a tribute to them who have become a star in the heavens, the dead who have fallen, and continue to fall, go forth, journey on. The lines are drawn, the dead to the dead, the lines are drawn, we the living to ourselves, and so salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively. And so this is I, your relative, and Ngāti Pāhauwera extending a tribute to you collectively, and grieving to my myriad of grown-ups and many callings, therefore, salutations and accolades to you, my relations and kinship group of the nation, my appreciation to us all.]

It is a great pleasure indeed to be able to speak in support of the first reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. It is a historic day and I too will add my welcome to all of the manuhiri who have come, who have travelled from afar, and those who might be tuning in over the airwaves to join in celebrating this significant occasion. I will also give a little shout-out to Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Tuia Te Mātangi from Whakatū who have come here.

This is a significant day. I just want to add my congratulations on all of the work that has gone on in the lead-up to this point. Can I acknowledge He Toa Takitini and, in particular, the negotiators, but also all of the many kaumātua and kuia, the whānau that have been part of the mahi and the struggle to lead us up to this point. It is just great to be able to share in these occasions. Can I acknowledge the work of He Toa Takitini, in particular the chair, Dr David Tīpene-Leach, Liz Munroe, Brian Morris, and Peter Paku, who I know are all up there in the gallery.

I want to acknowledge Dr David Tīpene-Leach just for his mahi for our pēpi, which he has been doing over many years, in reducing sudden, unexpected death in infancy. So I do want to acknowledge you for that important mahi, Dr Tīpene-Leach.

So here we are. We are here at this first reading. It is a significant day. I have not been a member on the Māori Affairs Committee through this Parliament, but I do acknowledge Tutehounuku, my whanaunga there from the south, for his chairmanship and for the work that goes on within the committee in its consideration of these important bills and settlement legislation. I know that as we go into the 52nd Parliament it will continue as we usher the passage of this bill through the House. I too acknowledge my tuahine here, Meka, and the work that she is doing with her people up in Ngāti Kahungunu. It is great to be able to be here to tautoko her as well as we conduct this first reading of this historic bill.

I will not repeat them, but there are 23 marae—23 marae—that make up Heretaunga Tamatea. I know quite a few of them very well. When I was a child growing up, blowing my Rātana horn in the Rātana band, I went to Ōmahu Marae and others. But I know that I have travelled up and down through the takiwā, and it is just wonderful to see them all represented here. Boy, they know how to manaaki. I mean, we do it good down south, but those are stunning, stunning memories that I have of visiting those marae and enjoying the hākari and the waiata. I sure hope we get to hear some today—the wonderful waiata from Ngāti Kahungunu. Those top 10 songs—everyone who is Ngāti Kahungunu knows those top 10 numbers. Those are the memories that I have of going through, and obviously I also think back to my late aunt the Hon Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan and my late grandfather who served the Southern Māori electorate, which included all of Kahungunu way back in the day, and I know how significant it is. So it is a pleasure to be their mokopuna, to be able to speak on this occasion.

We know that there is quite a dark history in terms of our country. We see it so often in all Treaty settlement legislation. What really jumps out at me in relation to Heretaunga Tamatea is the disposition of land. We know and we hear in every Treaty bill the modus operandi of the settler Government, whether it was through shonky purchases, whether it was through wars that were created in order to divide and rule, or whether it was through the Native Lands Act 1865—that was a tino taniwha that piece of legislation. We have heard that, and it is spelt out in the historical account with Heretaunga Tamatea, and the loss is real.

The deprivation of the economic base and what effect that has on a people is all too evident. To have 1.4 million acres and lose 1.2 million—84 percent—is just horrific. But we hear these stories all around the motu, and I am so pleased that we are here now and we can acknowledge that. The Crown is apologising for that, and we can now enact this settlement legislation to do our bit to rectify the wrongs of the past and build a base for Heretaunga Tamatea to launch from, into the future. That is definitely what this is about.

I do not want to prolong my contribution, but I do want to, once again, just mihi to our manuhiri from Heretaunga Tamatea and Ngāti Kahungunu. I am not an old boy of Te Aute College. I was close to it, though. I am the greatest old boy that never was. I had my dorm number. I had everything. I was all ready to go when I was just about to start college, and then at the last minute my dad wanted me to stay and play in the Ratana band. So I stayed home there in Pōneke. But I do acknowledge the provision that has been inserted into the settlement in regard to Te Aute College—one of the great Māori colleges. And I looked forward to, as we consider the bill further, all of the other gestures there, like the magnanimous gesture of the gifting back of significant sites. Those are huge gestures that Heretaunga Tamatea is going to be doing as a result of this legislation. So I do mihi and acknowledge them for that.

But for me, for this moment, I just want to mihi to everybody. This is the end of the 51st Parliament. We do not know who is coming back—ha, ha! But I do mihi to everyone here. As we continue on this mahi, we have done our bit for this Parliament, and the work will continue into the next Parliament where we will ultimately pass this bill for Heretaunga Tamatea. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou Heretaunga Tamatea, ngā kuia, ngā koroua, ngā mātua, ngā whaea, ngā rangatahi, ngā tamariki me pēpē, tino ātaahua.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you, Heretaunga Tamatea, the elderly women and men, parents, mothers, young ones, children and babies, really wonderful.]

Welcome, welcome to Te Whare Pāremata. I am very honoured to be speaking on the bill for this fantastic iwi. I want to acknowledge Meka Whaitiri. It is a wonderful day to be here and to acknowledge your contribution and all your people who have come. It is a wonderful thing. Because it is probably my last speech in the House, I just want to thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his kind recognition of my commitment, as a Pākehā, to speaking up for Te Tiriti, because Te Tiriti—you would not know it—is not Māori business; it is Pākehā business, and we ain’t doing the business until we do the business, and so I really want to stand on that take here today.

I would just like to start with Te Aute College—many people have referred to it. My memory, as a Pākehā, is that I was part of the Hīkoi Takutai Moana, and we were driving—we walked, we hīkoi-ed in the towns, but we drove between them—slowly past Te Aute College when we heard a sound, and the sound was some young men with their shirts off standing by the road doing the haka to acknowledge us. And we will never forget, all of us who were on that hīkoi—all of us five Pākehās and everyone else—the sound of rangatiratanga that Te Aute College gave us that day and that we received from Heretaunga Tamatea. And it has stayed with me for ever that sound of the next generation and the next and the next. One of the great old boys of Te Aute, Moana Jackson, always says—and I always listen—that Te Tiriti is not settled; it is honoured. That is where I will always challenge my own, because it is about: where is our honour? Where is our honour in this country?

We have not educated our own. It worries me that of the people who read Hansard—and I do not know how many people in this country spend their evenings reading Hansard when they could be watching a cooking show; I am going to be doing that when I leave here—or read deeds of settlement and historic accounts, how many people who are not Māori read these incredibly important documents? It is from there—from the understanding of who we are and who we are not, and of what has happened and what colonisation actually means. That is how we will transform this country; not by relying on tangata whenua to educate us. They have given enough. Enough has been given. It is time for us, my culture, to step up. Step up. We need to step up now, and the Crown has a role in helping us to do that.

I want to return to the historical account. When I was reading this, it was one of the most gruelling historical accounts, not because of the obvious blood on the page, at the first superficial glance, but because of what lay underneath. The relentless nature of the lying and thieving that took place has to be read and has to be felt to be understood, and I know I do not understand it but I got a glimpse of it, and I think about this beautiful whakataukī: “Te kanohi hōmiromiro o te hāro o te kahu.”—the all-seeing eye of the hawk in flight. For the kāhu, for the hawks in the gallery, who are all-seeing, they can see that we, the rest of us in this country, do not see what was taken and do not understand what was sold, and so this cannot be a full and final settlement until we take it on and we see what the kāhu sees: the theft of one of most magnificent pieces of whenua and awa across Aotearoa.

I lived in Tai Rāwhiti, and I drove through the whenua many times, and always there was a sense of wealth, but not the wealth of the tangata whenua; the wealth of those who have benefited from the theft. And time and time again, people in my culture say: “Oh, but I wasn’t there. I didn’t do it.” No, our generation was not there. We supposedly did not do it. We benefit from it to this day, and until we own that benefit, we cannot be part of the solution. It is not for Māori to lead on that; it is for us. I will say that again: our responsibility, as Pākehā and as tauiwi and as tangata Tiriti, is to honour article 2, because things happen that we need to feel and understand. Mr McLean for a kick-off, the surveyor who ended up in all kinds of important roles but who actually had to appear in front of the Napier magistrate in 1860 for being a rip-off artist—“He was described as one of the greatest trespassers and occupiers of native land in the province.” But they still name streets after him. He is still seen as a hero of the colonial story.

Marama Fox: Rugby Park. Kapa haka trophy.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Yeah. So how come? We do not know what Donald McLean was responsible for and what happened over those years from the 1850s, from post the Waipukurau settlement, from what was lost.

I think too that in the 1870s it was reported that the people of Porangahau were raising funds to send a deputation to the Queen, and after that people petitioned this Parliament again and again and again. I did not know before, to my shame, that Porangahau, a small but perfectly formed settlement on the coast, had to consider that in 1870. They had to consider going to the Crown in England because of what was being done—because of the loss of more than half the land by the 1860s. It had been purchased by the Crown.

I want to talk about one quote that just cut me to bits. In 1936, 20 percent of Māori children in Heretaunga Tamatea died before their fifth birthday—20 percent. That was five times the Pākehā rate. We have statistics now that are better than that, but they are not terrific, which tells us there is work to be done for our tamariki, for our mokopuna, so that those statistics disappear. They disappear from the fact, but they remain in the history, and we must remember those children who were lost—the grief that people have had to carry. I cannot imagine how you have carried it and survived, and you are still standing upright, hosting Te Matatini, being awesome, being Kahungunu.

I just want to acknowledge your environment, because there is an acknowledgment that—I love the euphemism—the whenua suffered “significant environmental transformation”. I think that is a euphemism for “raped and trashed”. Let us call it what it is. Tukituki Awa—I stood beside that awa this year. I looked at it, the sadness of the awa, the magnificent awa, trashed by land uses that have to be fixed. Ngaruroro is another magnificent awa that people are fighting to protect. It was then an economic base that was capable of producing kai and feeding thousands of people without trashing the environment. We need to watch and learn. Those tūpuna of these people knew how to grow food, how to look after whenua, how to preserve awa, and how not to trash their environment. But now we look at your rohe and think about the co-governance, the redress, and all the rest of those arrangements. You are getting back something that has been broken up. So now it is going to be the job to fix it. Well, thanks for nothing! If I were you, that is what I would be saying.

There is actually a lot of mahi that has to be done, and my whakaaro is: may my culture honour its responsibilities to truly be partners in the relationship called Te Tiriti. Otherwise, who are we? Who are we? Are we settlers? Are we thieves? Are we beneficiaries of a rip-off? What are we? I know that we are a good people, but in our ignorance of the past and our refusal to acknowledge our present privilege, we are continuing to do harm. I dedicate my life post this Parliament to continuing to commit to this, and I encourage all people, all Pākehā, to stand up, learn the history, listen to the whakaaro of Heretaunga Tamatea if you live in Hawke’s Bay. Listen, learn. Whose whenua are we standing on, who have generously given us a place to stand? Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Before I contribute to the debate on the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, I want to acknowledge you, given that this will probably be the last time I have the opportunity of addressing you. I just want to thank you for, certainly, the personal assistance you have given me in this House during your occupation of that august seat. I wish you all the best for the future.

Tēnā koe, ā, tēnā hoki tātou, koutou ngā whanaunga nā te mea, mōhio ana i a tātau nō hea a Kahungunu! Nā reira, ka mihi, ka mihi atu ki a koutou, mihi hoki ki a koutou ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa, i kawea atu mai i te whakatakotoranga o ngā kerēme, tae noa ki tēnei wā. Nā reira, ka nui ngā mihi ki a koutou. Ka nui hoki ngā pūhaehae i roto i a au nā te mea, i a mātau i roto o Ngāpuhi, kei te tatari tonu i a mātau ki te mahingia wā mātau kerēme, engari, ēhara nā Te Karauna te hē, nā mātau tēnā. Nā reira, tēnā pea, te kaha anō ō tā koutou āwhina mai i te motu, tēnā pea ka haere mai koutou ki te wā kāinga ki te awhi mai i a mātau e noho tonu i roto i ngā pōharatanga o Te Tai Tokerau. Kia ahatia? Mōhio ana au, kei te hōhā pai ētahi o waku whanaunga o te hau kāinga engari, ki tōku whakaaro, kei te tohutohu i a rātau kia maranga mai, kia mahingia ngā mahi, kia tae kē ki te wāhi pēnei i a koutou i te rā nei. Kia ahatia? Kei te huri haere waku kōrero engari, ka hoki mai ki te pire nei.

[Thank you and us as well, and you, the relations, because we know where Kahungunu is from! And so I acknowledge and commend you collectively and, as well, the bearers of this matter who did so when the claims were made right to this moment. Therefore, there are many tributes to you collectively. There are many jealousies too within me, because we in Ngāpuhi are still waiting for our claims to be done, but that is not the Crown’s fault, it is ours. Perhaps, therefore, through the strength of your assistance from the nation, you will come back home to help us living in the Northland poverty. So what can be done about it? I know for sure that some of my relations from back home are well and truly irked, but, in my view, it is telling us to rise up, to do the work, and to arrive instead at the place you are at today. So what? My comments are merely going around in circles, but must come back to this bill.]

I just wonder whether or not, if we had the opportunity in Te Tai Tokerau, to invite the claimants to have signed their deed of settlement back home—because I noticed that Heretaunga Tamatea signed their deed of settlement at Te Aute College. And what did Te Aute College get? It got $5 million for it. I think that that is a testament of the sense of obligation of this iwi to their community—knowing full well that Te Aute College is a college for all Māori students from around the country. They could have been selfish and said: “No, no, we’ll just give a scholarship of $5 million to our own children.” But, no, it has obviously been given with no strings attached. I think that that is just an example of the manaakitanga that this iwi has displayed to people around Aotearoa. It is also an extension of the manaakitanga they offered during Te Matatini, as the honourable member from Ikaroa-Rāwhiti alluded to, and I think that should be acknowledged during this debate.

This is a claim that is representative of 43 different hapū, and they are actually listed in the bill. While I know that there will be some people who will be delighted about having their claims settled in this manner, experience tells me that there will also be others who will not be so happy, because they have been caught up in the process of settlement in terms of large natural groupings. Not every claimant is happy about having their particular claims included in large natural groupings. I can see the argument from the Crown’s point of view as to why they do this, but I also have some sympathy for those claimants who want to deal with their claims separately. I note that this claim is also a result of direct negotiation between the claimants and the Crown, and I think that this is an example of what can happen if people decide to enter into direct negotiations. I only say that as a possible reminder for my own iwi that perhaps they ought to consider that at this stage.

The bill is the culmination of quite a lengthy process, and I understand that there are one or two people who descend directly from those who were responsible for the original claims. That is alluded to in the synopsis that has been circulated with the debate pack. I notice that financial and commercial redress of $105 million includes just over $50 million in on-account payments, and $5 million will be set aside to support the long-term sustainability of Te Aute College.

I also notice that in the local paper, reporting on this process, comment was made that for one of the claimants it was, in some respects, a sense of relief—I think a sense of relief that this whole process has got to this stage and they can actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. In other respects, there is a sense of great sadness, and I can appreciate that because you remember those who started this journey on behalf of the claimants themselves. So I can understand those sentiments.

This process of referring it to the Māori Affairs Committee will allow for those people of the tribe who have a contrary view on this settlement an opportunity to express that view, and consideration as to whether or not amendments should be made to the bill. But at the end of the day, it is something that—if they want to participate or are desirous of seeing changes, then they have to participate in the process. It is not acceptable to just sit on the sideline, watch the process take place, and then after that due process has been taken to then criticise the end product.

I just want to—like the rest of those who have spoken before me—commend to the House this bill, and I look forward to dealing with it in the Māori Affairs Committee in the select committee process. Engari i te kōrero whakamutunga, ngā mihi nunui ki a koutou o Heretaunga Tamatea, kia ora mai.

[But, in the closing statement, huge tributes to you collectively of Heretaunga Tamatea, and well done.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well, tēnā koutou, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare ō tātau, tēnei Whare o Pāremata. Ōku pou, ōku rahi nō ngā tōpito katoa o Heretaunga Tamatea, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā rangatira kei waenganui i a koutou, e kōkiri nei i tēnei kaupapa kei mua i te aroaro o Te Taraipiunara, e whawhai kaha ki te taha o tērā o ngā Minita me ana kaimahi e noho nei kei runga ake rā. Nā reira, ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa. Man, hareruia, hareruia, hareruia, kua tae ki tēnei wā!

[And so, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, acknowledgments to you collectively, welcome, come hither, come into this House of ours, this Parliament House. To my pillars and numerous from all extremities of Heretaunga Tamatea, I greet you collectively and acknowledge the esteemed ones in your midst who thrust this proposal before the tribunal and fought hard alongside that one of the Ministers and his officials sitting up there above. So to you collectively, I acknowledge and commend you, my appreciation to us all. Man, hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, this moment has arrived!

And I could not be more proud. The day we walked up to the signing at Te Aute, to that amazing site, I grabbed hold of Donna Awatere Huata and said: “Come on then, let’s make a bit of a stir.” We thought we were making a stir because she was in Mana and I was in Māori; we were not making any stir whatsoever, because all the stir was up there on the ātea, welcoming the Crown to that significant day when they would finally—finally—sign the deed of settlement. Awesome. It was an awesome day and a day that I will long remember.

I remember standing in front of you all feeling so proud, seeing all of our rangatahi out there, doing the haka, doing their dues. And our young women out there, leading out the front; our young men, right beside them, and then the way was split, straight to our kaumātua—too much. What a sight. I wish that some of you could have stood where I was standing to watch it happen, because you had practised over and over again, ready for that day.

But your practice came after years of preparation; years and centuries of preparation. I think back to Mohi Te Mātorohanga. Our tupuna Whatahoro, reputedly one of his protégés, sat at his feet to record the details of the whare wānanga, to record the details of his knowledge and hold it in perpetuity for all time, for all of us.

And when we did the Kahungunu Reo—rah-di-rah; I am not sure what it was—we were looking at our language, to see whether we could document it and record it and go around with tape recorders and record our old people speaking. They came to Wairarapa and said “Who have you got?”, and we literally had to say: “Nobody.” We literally had to say there was no one left that anyone could record who spoke Te Reo Māori tūturu from birth, from Wairarapa, from Ngāti Kahungunu. So where did we go? We went to those manuscripts that recorded your history—Mātorohanga’s words, Nēpia Pōhuhu’s words—the words of the Māori Parliament, to find the words of our ancestors veiled from us for such a long time because we did not have the language to read them.

We remember Te Matatini—and how cool was that? How generous, the people of Ngāti Kahungunu. It is all right, we are in the House; it is just us. I will be the kūmara on your behalf—or, actually, the anti-kūmara. It was great, and we should be proud, to have gone from a people who were virtually languageless, who have been told off by other iwi—do not pretend we have not; we have—for not having enough, what, culture, tikanga; for observing differently the aspects and the cultural custom of our people. We have. But to stand up so proudly together at Matatini and show our Māori nation that we are still here, we have still got skills, and we have our knowledge. But we have our knowledge because people just like yourselves went out and searched for it, went out and documented it, and went out and recorded it. And now Kahungunu is held up as an example of what it looks like to revive Reo, for Te Mātāwai—kia ora, Jeremy. And soon we will come to Kahungunu again, for the Reo awards.

You know, innovation sits amongst our people. And so I joined a group. I wanted to stand at Matatini with our young people. We got pipped at the post by Tamatea Arikinui, again—and you have all heard that story, you fullas—again came fifth to your fourth, and they only took four. I am not bitter. I even tried to learn the words of that blinking mōteatea that I still have trouble with now, but I have asked a few of our young ones if they would do it with me and I will try to follow with my phone, because what is recorded in this House is recorded for ever—for ever. I look back over the Hansard of this House sometimes to find out the things that people said about us. It made me angry. It made me want to come and take a place here, made we want to come and see the place where they said that the time has come to decide whether to civilise the natives—ooh, or exterminate them. “But if we are to civilise them we have to do so in a language that is more conducive to human thought.” Right? I got angry. But that is all right, because that spurs us on. It spurs us on to do things like Te Matatini and the Reo symposium and the kura Reo, and all the wonderful things that Kahungunu have done to revitalise and restore our lost knowledge. So I try—I am going to follow along, but please help me out because I want to get this in the Hansard. Nothing better describes our people than this. Here we go, nō reira:

Hikitia, hapainga ake i te tautara ki KahurānakiKei te uru rā ko te taupae ki RuahineKei runga rā ko te taupae ki RemutakaTe mata o Te Ika a Māui Tikitiki-a-Taranga e rarapa mai rā e-eKi Kahotea ko Mahinārangi taku ara rā ki Tainui Ki taku Upoko Ariki, ki a Tūheitia, e ko Te Kīngitanga e-eKo Te Whatu-i-apiti ki Te Roto-ā-Tara i kau tāwhai nei a Te Huhuti i te ānga a taraTe kōpū i puta ai ko Te Hāpuku, ko te tātai manu kura o te rohe e-eKōmuri mai ana ki te hāronga o te kāhū ki Heretaunga raorao haumakoTe putunga o te kai e-e! Māhitihiti mai ana ngā wai tuku kiri o Tukituki-papa, o Ngaruroro, o Tūtae-kurīKo te iwi Ponaturi kei Te Whanga-nui-a-OrotūNgā uri rā ko Pānia ko tana tama ko Moremore Ka topa, ka tiu ki Mōhaka ko Pāhauwera, ko Te Huki tātai ure pūkakaKa nanati, ka whiu i tana kupenga kia toro atu i Pōrangahau ki roto o Uawa Nāna ka noho mai ko te waikanaetanga, ko te rongo taketake i waenga i te iwi e-eKei paku kō atu ko te wai matangi rau, hōpūpū, hōngenengene, e ko Te Wairoa e-e!Whiua te titiro ki te uranga mai ko Hine-matioro, ko Te Kani-ā-TakirauNgā mana tiketike o te motu eRākai-pākā ki Nūhaka, ki Te Māhia-mai-i-tawhiti ko Ngāti Hikairo,Ki Te Whakakī-nui-a-rua ko Ngāti Hinepua Ko Hine-pūariari ki Whareongaonga i kī nei tana korero,“Kāore hoki tērā te hanga o taku tāne, kāore e rūpeke mai anaTakoto noa mai te nuinga i waho”Utua ana e te tapairu o Tawapata, e Rongo-mai-wahine, i hinga nei i te pīhau pāua,“Nā te mea rā he kōpua pāpakuMehemea rā e taka ana ki te kōpua hōhonu a Rapa e tuwhera atu neiPokopoko ana ia ki roto”Ka noho rangatira te tahā wairere nei a Kahungunu i ana wāhine tokowaru Pepehatia ana “Ko te ure whakaparatī”Ka puta ki waho ngā uri whakaheke e tū atu nei, ngā tukunga iho o Ngāti Kahungunu e-e!

There is not much more to say after that. I am going to give a copy of the kupu to the people who record and translate for us, so they can get it down in the Hansard for all time immemorial.

Tēnā koutou rangatahi mā, ko koutou te tutukitanga o tērā o ngā poropiti a Paora Potangaroa nāna te kī [Accolades to you, the younger generation, you collectively are indeed the end product of Paora Potangaroa, that one of the prophets who said]—[Interruption] I will be finished very quickly. He said that we will lose our language but our children will bring it back. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Kāti aku rangatira i rongo atu ahau i ngā kupu kua waiatatia, kua ngeritia ki roto i tō tātau Whare i te rā nei. E te pāpā e Jerry, ka tuituia te mana o tō tupuna a Te Hāpuku ki tēnei te uri a Kawiti. Ko Te Whakaputanga ki runga rā. Kāti ake, e te pāpā e Brian, harikoa ana kua hoki mai koe ki tēnei pito o Te Motu, ki tēnei kāinga o tāua. Ko te manako i pai tō hararei ki tāwāhi, ki tō mokopuna engari, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou! Hoinō ko tāku i tēnei wā hei whakakapi ake i ngā kōrero mō tēnei wāhanga o te rā. Kua rongo koutou, e ōku rangatira, i ngā kōrero a Te Minita huri haere i roto i Te Whare nei, ko ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, ko ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a koutou, hoinō ko tāku i tēnei wā, i te Pēpuere kua pahure ake nei, i karapoti ai ngā iwi maha o Aotearoa ki runga i a koutou, te kawe i ngā mate ki runga i a koutou! I tēnei wā, ko koutou tēnā kua kawe mai i ngā aituā ki runga i te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare, kia kotahi ai te mihi atu ki a rātau mā kua ngaro ki Te Pō, haere, haere, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e Te Whare. E ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Kahungunu, e tika ana te kōrero, nō roto i a au o Muriwhenua tērā tupuna o tātau engari, ka whakaaro ake mō tōku tupuna a Te Wera Hauraki, ā muri ake i ngā pakanga a Hongi, a wai atu rāini a Pōmare mā ki Te Nukuroa. I noho ki roto i a koutou, anā, ko ētahi o ngā tatau pounamu i hoatu e koutou ki a ia, nā ka heke iho mai ki tōku whānau, anā ko Te Rei-ā-Nihoniho tērā, ā, nō reira i runga i tērā hononga ki a koutou, e mihi atu ana. Ko te manako, kia pai ai tō koutou hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga. Kaua e haere nā runga i te pōhēhē ko te mahi o ngā mema o tēnei Whare, ko te mihi ki a mātau anake. Ē, kua rongo atu koutou e whiuwhiu haere nei ngā mihi ki ngā Minita, ki ngā mema, anā, ki Te Kaiwhakawā i tēnei totohe, hoinō tāku ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, haere me ngā manaakitanga. E tautoko ana au i tēnei pire, kia ora tātau katoa!

[And so my esteemed ones I heard the words being sung and chanted in our House on this day, Oh, father figure Jerry, the integrity of our ancestor Te Hāpuku is being linked to this relative of ours Kāwiti. It is an elevation to the very uppermost indeed. And so enough, father figure Brian, it is really pleasing that you have come back to this side of the country, to this settlement of ours. The hope is that your holiday overseas to your grandchild was good, but I am acknowledging you collectively! Accordingly, my part at this moment is to cover off the contributions for this part of the day. To my esteemed ones, you have heard the contributions by the Minister right throughout this House, those related to this bill and to you collectively, and so my part at this time relates to the February just past when many tribes surrounded and descended upon you with the deaths upon their backs! At this point, you collectively are the ones bearing the deaths upon you to place upon the ridge pole of our House so that tributes are accorded to them at the same time as one who has gone to the void, depart, go forth, farewell.

The contributions are now brought back to us in the House. To my relatives of Ngāti Kahungunu, the statement is correct that that ancestor of ours Muriwhenua comes from within me, but I think about my ancestor Te Wera Hauraki following the battles of Hongi and whomever, about Pōmare and them, to Te Nukuroa. He lived amongst you, and there, some of the most enduring peace was given by you to him, consequently it came down to my family, that was Te Rei-ā-Nihoniho, and as a consequence of that connection to you, I salute you. The hope is that you return back home is a safe one. Do not go on the mistaken impression that the task of members of this House is solely to compliment us. I draw your attention to the compliments being cast about to Ministers, to members, and even to Mr Speaker in this debate, accordingly mine to you is congratulations, go forth with respects. I endorse this bill with my appreciation to us all!]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 1.10 p.m. (Wednesday)