Tuesday, 19 December 2017

TUESDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2017

TUESDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

John Gerald O’Brien

Mr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death, on 13 December 2017, of John Gerald O’Brien, who represented the electorate of Island Bay for the New Zealand Labour Party from 1969 to 1978. Mr O’Brien was the chairperson of the Finance Committee from 1969 to 1976.

I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Visitors

Australia—Chair and Deputy Chair, House of Representatives’ Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee

Mr SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Australian House of Representatives’ Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee, Trent Zimmerman and Steve Georganas, who are present in the gallery.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Families Package—Reactions and Targeting

1. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reaction has he seen to the package of measures contained in the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill that passed through the House last week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’m pleased to say that the reaction from a broad range of groups has been very positive. UNICEF New Zealand said that the package “feels like a Christmas present for every family across New Zealand.” A spokesperson for the Salvation Army said our Best Start payment “is a terrific payment and I think it will make a real difference.” The Auckland City Mission said the package will have a significant impact on the lives of many of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people: our children. Finally, the Child Poverty Action Group said, “today is the day to celebrate that at last children’s needs are being taken seriously.” It’s clear that social sector organisations are excited to finally see a Government that is willing to tackle issues such as child poverty head on.

Angie Warren-Clark: What reaction has the Minister seen from commentators and financial markets about the impact of the Families Package on the Government’s finances?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Commentators such as Audrey Young from the New Zealand Herald describe the package as having a stunning impact. Moody’s New Zealand said that the Government can “fund higher spending on families and other social benefits, infrastructure, affordable housing, and education while maintaining fiscal surpluses.” Moody’s went on to say that “this supports our assessment of the sovereign’s very high fiscal strength.” Moody’s also noted that with Government debt at moderate levels and prospects for it to continue to decline, New Zealand has higher fiscal headroom than many other similarly rated high-income sovereigns to counter negative shocks. I’m pleased to see the markets recognise that this Government can deliver in its election promises while paying down debt and maintaining surpluses.

Angie Warren-Clark: What reactions have there been to the Families Package from organisations that deal directly with children?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Plunket said, “It is encouraging to see that the Government is taking action in its first 100 days to help make the difference of a lifetime in our tamarikis’ first 1,000 days.” Barnados also said that the Best Start payment sends a strong message that all children are valued and their potential is invested in equally. I have also, sadly, seen another organisation—this House—that had to deal with a child-like tantrum about the Families Package, but I’m sure that if, in the future, Jami-Lee Ross has his juice box—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm that the net saving over the forecast period from cancelling the tax threshold changes in his package is $2.8 billion; and can he also confirm that the cost of phase one of the tertiary education package over the forecast period is also $2.8 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm the first of those questions.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm then he’ll also stop telling single people, couples with no children, and parents with grown-up children that he cancelled the tax changes to invest in health and education services when he actually spent them on a year’s free tertiary education for 18-year-olds?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s Budget, taken as a whole, will provide huge benefits to the groups of people that the member—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a fairly specific question in regard to whether he’d stop saying that.

Mr SPEAKER: One thing that the member will learn is he has to wait until the member stops, and I’m the one who stops him.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s Budget taken as a whole will deliver huge benefits to the people the member mentions in his question by reducing the cost of them going to the doctor, by improving the range of housing services available. The member well knows it is not possible to hypothecate individual parts of the Government’s Budget against any particular spending.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously, I was guilty of anticipation, but it was a very straightforward question: can he confirm he’ll stop telling single people, a couple with no children, and parents with grown-up children that he’s going to cancel the tax changes to invest in health and education services. The reason for that is that the money has gone directly to tertiary education. He can either confirm that he is going to stop that, or he can’t; that’s something that he can do.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll remind the member, as he was wont to do once or twice in the past, that questioners cannot insist on a yes or no answer.

David Seymour: In all of this receipt of reports, has the Minister consulted with the poor elves who must pay for all this largesse sans tax cuts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe what the member is referring to as the “poor elves” are the New Zealand people. The consultation happened at the election, and three parties formed an excellent Government.

David Seymour: Can I clarify for the Minister that the poor elves are the taxpayers, almost none of whom voted for his Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There wasn’t a question there—but it’s been used.

Prime Minister—KiwiBuild, Tax Rates, and Winter Energy Payment

2. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she stand by her policy to deliver 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, over and above what the private market or former Government were going to deliver, and does that mean that the KiwiBuild homes announced by Phil Twyford at Asquith Avenue in her electorate, which were already being delivered by the previous Government, don’t actually count as part of the 100,000?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If they’d already been delivered, people would be living in them.

Rt Hon Bill English: So can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that the 100,000 affordable homes are over and above the existing programme of 35,000 new builds by Housing New Zealand, and therefore she will need to make sure the Government builds 135,000 homes in order to meet the target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m happy to speak to some of the specific examples in my electorate, where that building programme had not been delivered because some of the houses were meant to be at market value. The interest wasn’t there, and they weren’t built. What we’ve committed to doing is building 100,000 affordable homes that would not be otherwise built without the Government’s intervention.

Rt Hon Bill English: So can the Prime Minister confirm that she intends to count as part of the 100,000 houses all of those houses that had been begun or were planned by Housing New Zealand, and, in fact, that she’s not building 100,000 in addition to what the former Government were going to deliver?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, KiwiBuild homes are affordable homes that would otherwise not have been built had it not been for the intervention of the Government.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she stand by her Government’s policy that superannuitants will be no worse off as a result of the cancellation of National’s tax reductions, and, if so, how does she explain to a superannuitant couple that they will receive $290 less next year because of the delayed introduction of the Winter Energy Payment?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I acknowledge that the winter energy payment does come in in July. That simply was a matter of us being able to make sure we could implement what is a significant programme. There will, from memory, be 13 weeks of winter energy payment next year, and then it extends to the full payment from May to September in the following year.

Rt Hon Bill English: So why did the Prime Minister not then tell superannuitants that next year they will be $290 worse off than if they had received the tax reductions, and it’s not until the following year that they will be in the same position as they would have been?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we take as a whole the benefits of this Government to older New Zealanders, it’s not just the fact that they will receive the winter energy payment. We also have plans to bring down primary health costs, and there’s access to cheaper doctors services. There are a number of other plans that we have in train that will all benefit superannuitants. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Nick Smith.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is possible that the Prime Minister’s having difficulty answering this question, given that Mr Joyce says one thing and his leader says something else? Mr English says that it will be affordable two years from now, in balancing out the loss of the tax cut, and Mr Joyce says it never will be balanced out.

Mr SPEAKER: While I’m sure the Prime Minister wishes to comment, I’m not going to let her.

Rt Hon Bill English: So can the Prime Minister confirm that the winter payment next year to superannuitants is $290 less than the tax reduction that they would have achieved?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again reiterating, as we have done in the House continuously: that was a tax cut they never actually received. It wasn’t in place. But the winter energy payment does start in July; it runs till September, then runs in full from the following year. But, of course, as we say, we have a focus on improving services overall for our superannuitants.

Rt Hon Bill English: When the Prime Minister said superannuitants would be no worse off than if they had received National’s tax reduction, why did she not tell them that next year they will be $290 a week worse off against the benchmark that she set?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said several times, yes, it begins in July. Some of that, in part, was just the implementation of what will be the largest payment introduced in our system that we have seen in some considerable time. By the following year it will be, for a couple, a full $700 payment, and $450 for singles. And, as I say, there will be a number of other benefits for superannuitants, particularly when it comes to accessing healthcare, which had declined dramatically under that last Government.

Marine Species Protection—Japanese Whaling in Southern Ocean

3. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What reports has he received about increased international opposition to whaling in the Southern Ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): A joint communique was issued yesterday with a group of nations expressing opposition to Japanese whaling, which resumed in the Southern Ocean this summer. This statement was co-signed by New Zealand and 11 other nations, along with the 28 members of the European Union, and states our opposition to so-called scientific whaling by Japan.

Jenny Marcroft: Does the New Zealand Government see any legal basis for Japan’s whaling in the Southern Ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No. The New Zealand Government supports the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Japan’s decision to resume whaling in the Southern Ocean this summer is contrary to the commission’s requests. The international statement issued yesterday, which New Zealand co-signed, says Japan has not given due regard to the International Court of Justice ruling from March 2014, which called into question Japan’s so-called scientific research.

Jenny Marcroft: What actions will he be taking in response to Japanese whaling?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: New Zealand will be undoubtedly a strong voice and will work with other countries to maintain international pressure. We’ll continue to raise our concerns through diplomatic channels, and New Zealand will continue to remain an active member of the International Whaling Commission and support the approach taken by the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission.

Jenny Marcroft: Why does the Government feel strongly about protecting species in the Southern Ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because, amongst other things, it’s the right thing to do. We’re a member of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). As a CCAMLR member we support a precautionary and science-based approach, which ensures the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. New Zealand is also a key proponent of the marine protection area in the Ross Sea, which came into effect on 1 December this year—a decisive action taken by this energetic new Government.

Fiscal Strategy—Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update

4. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: How many new specific fiscal risks are in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update released last Thursday?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As in all economic and fiscal updates, there are specific risks, which can be positive or negative. In the half-yearly update, Treasury has noted 29 new specific fiscal risks. They comprise 21 as a consequence of policy changes, 17 of which relate to the change in Government; four are departmental cost pressures; and four are cross-portfolio specific fiscal risks.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm that actually in fact 24 out of the 29 new fiscal risks relate to new Government policies—for example, the cross-portfolio risks he refers to relate to things such as paying a living wage, and so on, which are all as a result of new Government policies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I can’t confirm that, but I can confirm that there are a further 39 specific fiscal risks that the Government inherited from the previous Government.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he recall his statement on 9 November, and I quote, “When the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Budget Policy Statement are released before the end of the year, there will be significant certainty about our spending plans.”, and does only publishing costings for the 100-day plan policies, while including 29 new unquantified specific fiscal risks, meet his definition of significant savings?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, it does. The 100-day plan represents some major programmes for this Government that will transform the lives of many New Zealanders.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm he gave a speech on 11 December in Auckland where he committed to investing $15 billion in light rail over the next 10 years, and can he explain why that isn’t included as a specific fiscal risk in the half-yearly update?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm I gave that speech; I don’t believe I put a number beside it.

Hon Steven Joyce: Couldn’t hear the answer, sorry.

Kiritapu Allan: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—order! I will ask Mr Robertson to answer a bit more slowly and into the mike.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that I gave that speech; I cannot confirm I put a specific number beside it.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he also confirm that the Government and the Minister of Health have committed to a $1.4 billion rebuild of Dunedin Hospital, which is no longer being a public-private partnership, and can he explain why that large sum of money doesn’t appear as a specific fiscal risk in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The specific fiscal risks are Treasury’s work; they’re not political work. Treasury make their assessment of what they believe should go in there.

Hon Steven Joyce: So is the Minister saying that he takes no responsibility for the non-disclosure of a $15 billion specific risk in relation to Auckland light rail and no responsibility for a $1.4 billion specific fiscal risk not appearing in relation to Dunedin Hospital, and is he not the Minister of Finance in charge of Treasury?

Mr SPEAKER: Any one of the three.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I’m not confirming that.

Kiritapu Allan: How do the specific fiscal risks in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update compare to previous economic and fiscal updates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said earlier, specific fiscal risks are a regular part of these updates. To give a relevant comparison, the first economic and fiscal update after the 2008 election noted 62 new specific fiscal risks, 32 of which had an unquantified fiscal impact on the then Government’s books.

Housing—Auckland Housing Relocation Grant and KiwiBuild

5. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What recent policy decisions has the Government made regarding housing?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yesterday, Cabinet approved papers laying the groundwork for the KiwiBuild programme and the Housing Commission, which will be the Government’s urban development authority. This ticks off yet another of this Government’s “first 100 days” promises.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What will happen next? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I’m sort of saying that—let’s take a narrow view on that.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The KiwiBuild programme is beginning to gear up. A unit within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is being created so that we can hit the ground running and start building houses as soon as possible, in both Government and private developments. Next year, I will bring to the House legislation to enable the Housing Commission to begin its work on large-scale development to deliver KiwiBuild homes, State houses, and market houses at the pace and scale that we need.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What indications of interest has he received from the building industry in KiwiBuild and the Housing Commission?

Mr SPEAKER: Just before the member answers, I am going to just tell Michael Woodhouse that I think I heard him, but I might not have—all right.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: My office has been overwhelmed by builders and experts seeking meetings, coming forward with their ideas, and putting their hands up to make our ambitious housing agenda a reality. I want to acknowledge all those firms and individuals, including those that I haven’t been able to meet with yet. We’re all going to need to work together on this to get the job done, and it’s great to see so much positive support.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What other housing policy decisions has the Government made recently?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve decided not to apply for new funding for the Auckland relocation grant. The figure of $2.3 million was spent on the Auckland relocation grant, paying people to leave town. This panicked reaction on the eve of the last Budget just shifted people to other places that had their own housing problems. The money could have been better used building better affordable homes. This Labour-led Government isn’t about sweeping the problem under the carpet; we’re about building homes for families to live in.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In light of his decision around the Auckland relocation grant, did he perceive the Minister of Finance to be mildly miffed or seriously annoyed that his desperate call for savings achieved just $2.5 million from the housing portfolio?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think the member is confused, because there’s no savings to be made by this decision, because there was no money left in the appropriation.

Provincial Growth Fund—Funding Sources and Progress

6. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements on the Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes, in the context with which they were given and my ability to recall them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he stand by his statement to this House on 9 November that “the full content, structure, and character of the fund will be dealt with conclusively in the Budget [Policy Statement].”?

Hon SHANE JONES: Given that the meaning of the word “character” refers to the nature of a thing, yes, I do.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, how can he when it barely rates a mention in the Budget Policy Statement (BPS)—certainly in no detail—and in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) it is stated only as a specific fiscal risk, given that no decisions have been made?

Hon SHANE JONES: I direct the member’s attention to page 13, and he can read the answer himself.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Grant Robertson’s statement to the House on 9 November that “when the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Budget Policy Statement are released before the end of the year, there will be significant certainty about our spending plans. If the member can’t wait, I’ll make up a special Advent calendar for him so that he can count down to the half yearly update.”; if not, where’s my Advent calendar?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have been tempted to offer the Minister of Finance an almanac; however, I can confirm that we’re both working on the full extent of the fund, and I direct the Opposition to read page 13—an ominous number for them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can he continue to confirm, as he preciously has, that the fund will be “new money”?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that I have described it as not being a “fiscal hand-me-down”.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the fact that the fund is not detailed in the BPS or the HYEFU mean that initiatives that he’s been eager to get on with won’t be able to start as soon as he would like, because the money isn’t flowing yet?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that I have become a victim of my own political ardour.

Health Services—Funding

7. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What measurable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Better health for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How much money is he allowing for the specific fiscal risks listed in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update of primary care services funding, in which he’s promised $8 and $2 GP consultations as well as settling the pay equity claims of mental health workers—another Labour Party promise?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member knows that the specific fiscal risks are the responsibility of Treasury.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How will he deliver his promise of a $1.4 billion Dunedin Hospital, $200 million for the Hawke’s Bay Hospital rebuild, plus over $100 million to complete the Christchurch Hospital rebuild, when there’s only $500 million for all 20 district health boards (DHBs) allocated in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update over the next five years?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that this Government has taken a far more responsible attitude towards capital spending. Indeed, I’ve seen a report from a member of the public expressing concern that the $1.4 billion spend could not be contained within the unallocated capital spending of $10.2 billion. The maths, for me, just doesn’t add up, and I can only assume that member of the public has been getting his advice from Steven Joyce on the numbers—because it was the former Minister of Health.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What will Vote Health be in four years’ time to the nearest billion dollars if it’s over $16 billion today and he’s promised an extra $8 billion for Vote Health over the next four years?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will have to wait and see in the Budget.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can the Government’s fiscal plan be correct if the $846 million allowed for health in 2018 has, in his words, been “pretty much spent” on primary care promises and DHB pressures, yet he’s promised an uncosted mental health worker pay equity settlement, a $10 million cancer agency, more palliative care, and operations for everyone, as well as the fact that he has a massive shortfall for DHB capital?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t accept the premise of the member’s question.

Dr Liz Craig: What concerns, if any, does he have about capital spending pressures in the health system and their ability to deliver better health outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Finally, a searching question. I have a number of concerns about capital spending pressures in health, including the sequencing of asset replacements required to ensure the delivery of better health outcomes for New Zealanders. In particular, I am concerned that DHBs have signalled a required capital spend of $14 billion over the next 10 years, higher than at any time since the DHBs were established. This is a legacy of a failure to budget for future needs during nine long years of neglect of the health system.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Overseas Investment Act Changes

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I ask this question on behalf of Priyanca Radhakrishnan. She’s a bit crook, sir.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We don’t need the details, and I think the member can leave his Wairarapa habits at home.

8. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) on behalf of PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Finance: How is the Government preserving the right of New Zealanders to own New Zealand homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): This afternoon, Parliament will debate the first reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. This bill recognises and reaffirms that it is a privilege to own a home in New Zealand. Only New Zealand and Australian citizens, and permanent residents who reside here, will be able to buy an existing home in New Zealand without going through screening by the Overseas Investment Office. This is another example of an active Government delivering on its promises and working in the interests of New Zealanders.

Kieran McAnulty: What are the objectives behind the Government’s ban on overseas buyers of New Zealand homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Neither Labour, New Zealand First, nor the Greens believes that New Zealand homes are commodities to be traded on international markets. This is a clear difference between this Government and the past Government. This Government continues to welcome foreign investment, which brings benefits to New Zealand, including our businesses and communities. We particularly want to encourage foreign investment where it adds to our economy. Investment in existing homes by those who have no right to reside here and no intention to live here does not achieve that objective.

Kieran McAnulty: How is the ban on overseas buyers compatible with New Zealand’s free-trade agreements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The ban is compatible with almost all of our existing trade arrangements, but has to be in law before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement comes into effect. The past Government said it was impossible to ban overseas buyers, but we’re doing it. They said we had to choose between trade agreements and controlling our housing market, and we’ve shown that was wrong. They told New Zealanders before the election, trying to wedge us between our belief in open trading arrangements and our desire to keep New Zealand homes in a New Zealand market. We’ve shown them to be wrong, and they were either incompetent or disingenuous.

Hon Members: Or both.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Probably both.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Commentary

9. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Justice: Will the Government be seeking to advance the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill today; if so, is it his intention to move that it be referred to select committee for the standard six-month period of consideration?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill currently sits at No. 4 on today’s Order Paper, so whether we get to it today will depend on the progress the House makes on other matters. The bill will be subject to the normal select committee process.

Hon Amy Adams: Has he read the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the impact of such legislation, which concludes that MPs having a free parliamentary mandate is an essential cornerstone of democracy, and views laws like the one he is proposing as both unacceptable political party dictatorship and a breach of fundamental human rights?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I reject those assertions. The fundamental principle of our electoral system is proportionality of parties in Parliament. The electorate gets to speak every general election. That is the numbers, or the proportion of parliamentary representation in Parliament, cast in stone, and it would be anti-democratic for any member during the course of the Parliament to abandon the banner under which they stood and distort parliamentary proportionality.

Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that if the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill passes into law, New Zealand will join a unique group of nations including Serbia, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia, and Papua New Guinea, who all have such party-hopping laws?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I re-emphasise the important principle of MMP politics as the party proportionality in Parliament. The electorate, every general election, gets to speak and decide the proportion, or the share, of seats in Parliament for each party. It would be wrong and anti-democratic and in breach of fundamental democratic principle for any member to arrogate to themselves the right to distort that parliamentary proportionality, and this bill seeks to enshrine that important democratic principle.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with constitutional scholar Andrew Geddis, who said “using the law to try and quash internal party disagreement and ensure the governing arrangement lasts the full distance comes at a cost to our wider system of parliamentary democracy.”, and if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sometimes I agree with Andrew Geddis, and sometimes I don’t. But what I do agree with is that the basic MMP principle of the proportionality of parties in Parliament is sacrosanct and must be protected, and it will be enshrined in this bill.

Hon Amy Adams: So—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Bishop, you just lost your team a supplementary question.

Hon Amy Adams: So what specific issues have arisen in recent months that in his view make this legislation necessary, given that none of the parties in Government campaigned on implementing the law and some are on record actively opposing such a law?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have had legislation like this in our country before and it had a sunset clause, and it is a matter of the sacrosanct nature of MMP politics and the proportionality of Parliament. I think it is very good that that member should show a very close interest in the right of parties and their leaders to exercise their powers under this legislation, because I think she secretly harbours a wish to be in the position to exercise those powers one day.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is, very simply, that I asked him a very straight and direct question about what events have happened to make it necessary, given that no one campaigned on it. He didn’t come near to that in his answer. He just had a swipe at me.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, I think he approached it. [Interruption] Well, I mean, the fact that the member didn’t confirm a negative should make it clear.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister advise us as to whether he’s had any reports of the incongruity of the arguments being put to him now, given that the National Party expelled that virtue of freedom and democracy—namely, yours truly?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think it’s fair to say there’s no responsibility there.

Hon Phil Twyford: Can the Minister confirm whether he’s received any advice about parties in the current Parliament who may want a coalition partner, encouraging breakaway parties before the “waka-jumping” legislation comes into effect?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have seen reports of at least one party who is desperately looking for a partner—they are desperate and dateless. They are looking at setting up what can only be described as the political equivalent of a Potemkin village to achieve it.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, I was actually interested in the answer to that question. He was asked specifically about advice, and he went on some sort of rant about reports he had seen. They’re quite different things.

Mr SPEAKER: That’s probably a fair comment, and as a result of that I will give a couple of extra supplementaries to the National Party.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile—

Hon Paula Bennett: Do it again.

Mr SPEAKER: Minus one, Paula Bennett.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile his party’s policy of “strengthen[ing] parliament and the parliamentary processes to ensure it … can be a democratic forum for the public on legislation and policy issues and that it can act as an effective protector of human rights”, when the very intent and effect of the bill he is proposing will remove that democratic forum and will remove the protection of fundamental human rights?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Because the most important rights in a parliamentary democracy are the rights of the voters. I do not elevate the self-interested rights of some members in this Parliament to want to distort parliamentary proportionality under the MMP system.

Climate Change—Consultation, Economic Opportunities, and Impact

10. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: Why has he announced that he will be consulting with New Zealanders on a Zero Carbon Act, setting new targets and plans to reduce climate pollution?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): That is because we are embarking on what will be a significant and far-reaching piece of legislation to guide New Zealand’s economic transformation over the next 30 years. We need to make sure that we bring all New Zealanders along with us, especially people who work in industries and in communities that might change over the next few decades, and also because we want to achieve as broad political support as possible. We want this to be a just and effective transition, which is why we’ve agreed that it will be guided by principles like predictability for business, ambition when it comes to setting goals, being evidence led, and creating enduring institutional arrangements.

Gareth Hughes: Why is an independent climate commission important?

Hon JAMES SHAW: It’s because we are talking about a long-term economic—

Hon Simon Bridges: Because James won’t make the hard decisions.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I’m sorry, Simon?

Hon Simon Bridges: I said, because you won’t make the hard decisions.

Hon JAMES SHAW: It is because we are talking about a long-term economic transition—30 years—and we need to be able to maintain a level of consistency around policy and actions that will survive changes in Government and shifts in the economy that can’t be predicted today. An independent climate commission helps to achieve that. The United Kingdom pioneered the independent commission model, and it’s now been implemented in about half a dozen other jurisdictions around the world.

Gareth Hughes: What steps will he take to give local government, Māori, business, farmers, unions, and other communities the opportunity to have input into the Government’s climate change policies?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I took the first step this morning, meeting with business representatives from a number of sectors across the economy—Māori business interests and environmental campaigners—over coffee and Christmas mince pies to discuss yesterday’s announcement and the Government’s plans. The next step will be to gather some very robust economic research so we can make fully informed decisions. Then in May next year, the Government intends to hold a very broad and inclusive public consultation around the country. We’ll be engaging with specific sectors, such as unions, iwi and Māori, businesses, farmers, local government, and communities. Everyone needs to play their part, and we are all in this together.

Todd Muller: If the independent climate change commissioner recommends that agriculture is not to be brought into the emissions trading scheme (ETS), will the Minister accept that recommendation?

Hon JAMES SHAW: We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Todd Muller: How many countries include agriculture in their emissions trading scheme or equivalent?

Hon JAMES SHAW: At the present, there are none. There are a number of countries that are moving in that direction. So one of the things that I’ve observed at the Bonn climate conference is that the vast—Mr Speaker, I’m just waiting to see if his colleagues would like him to hear the answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I shouldn’t really give the member advice, but he could be waiting a long time. So have a go anyway.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Mr Muller, one of the things that I noticed at the Bonn conference is that the vast majority of our trading partners in OECD countries are at present dealing with transport and energy emissions, which in those countries form the bulk of their emissions profile, but, as they deal with them, agriculture will become a much larger portion of their emissions, and they are interested in dealing with those in time. So we are all moving in that direction, and I can see that New Zealand has an incredible opportunity to play the lead role.

Todd Muller: Is the Minister aware of any possible way to produce—through farming—dairy, beef, and lamb products without resulting in methane emissions, either under current technologies or technologies in development?

Hon JAMES SHAW: In gross terms, no. By definition, anything that has ruminant animals will have methane emissions associated with it. However, as the member will probably well know, in fact gross emissions from that sector are actually falling at the moment, and as farmers become more productive—and New Zealand farmers are amongst the most productive in the world—emissions per unit can come down, meaning that over time we can get to a situation where we do have a net zero emissions economy, including agriculture in that. I think that that means that New Zealand has a tremendous leadership role to play for the rest of the world and that it represents the single greatest economic opportunity for us in at least a generation.

Gareth Hughes: What advice has the Minister received about the impacts that climate change is already having on New Zealand?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I’ve been advised that climate change is already affecting our coastal communities and our farmers, Mr Muller, and it is not too late to do anything about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Hughes.

Hon JAMES SHAW: The climate change adaptation technical working group’s updated assessment, which I released last Friday, along with the coastal hazards guidance for local government laid out what I see as grim reading and some big-picture challenges to address the risks and impacts of climate change. But forewarned is forearmed, and these documents, together with the information that we will gather from consultation over the zero carbon Act, are important to meet those challenges around future infrastructure, resilience, local government planning decisions, and also to help businesses, communities, and farmers to build resilience and to adapt.

Gareth Hughes: What reports has the Minister seen about the economic opportunities to be gained from transitioning New Zealand to a low-carbon economy?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I have seen recently that the Sustainable Business Council’s members “see climate change, and the clean technologies and solutions required, as a real opportunity for innovation and investment.” I’ve seen reports that in countries like the United States, jobs in the solar energy industry are growing 17 times faster than the entire rest of the economy. I’ve seen reports that the global clean energy investment this year will be almost US$300 billion, which is up 40 percent on last year alone, and I’d like to see a bit more of that in New Zealand. I’m looking forward to the Productivity Commission’s report next year about the opportunities that a low-carbon economy will have for New Zealand. Our transition to a net zero economy by the year 2050 will be a great economic transformation that sets up New Zealanders and our communities to prosper for decades to come.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I apologise to the House. I meant to raise this at the end of my question, but I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of that one. I seek leave to table the 2011 report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, The impact of political party control over the exercise of parliamentary mandate.

Mr SPEAKER: Is that available on the web?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I can’t confirm that. I didn’t get it on the web. It was supplied to me, so I can’t confirm whether it’s there, but I don’t think it’s freely available to members, given that it’s not a New Zealand organisation.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, well, we’ll put the leave. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It will be so tabled.

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

Housing New Zealand—Performance and Vacant Land

11. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he agree with all reported statements made by Hon Phil Twyford in relation to housing; if so, on what date did he realise that Housing New Zealand was already “moving in the right direction”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, I mostly agree with what Phil Twyford says. Recently, I dealt with a case of Robert Erueti. Under the previous Government’s policies, Housing New Zealand evicted this man due to a very low methamphetamine reading in his State house, which there was no suggestion that he personally was responsible for. The previous Government then spent $44,000 putting him in motels for over a year and he eventually became homeless. When I asked Housing New Zealand about this, they told me they wanted to change this failed policy. With better meth testing and sensible policy, Mr Erueti would not have been evicted. I have apologised to Mr Erueti for how he was treated, and Housing New Zealand has now found him a house. I was also shocked to learn that Housing New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order! [Interruption] Order! It’s been too long already.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he also apologise to the hard-working staff of Housing New Zealand, given his new-found view that they were providing outstanding care, having previously accused them of staggering incompetence?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was shocked to learn that Housing New Zealand staff have been doing pastoral care of tenants in their own time, and I’ve been assured that this work is now going to happen as part of Housing New Zealand’s core business in paid staff time, and is not something that staff have to do for free. Housing New Zealand want to become a world-class public housing landlord and to work with me on building more State houses, and they are happy with the direction that’s being taken under this coalition Government.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree that he made a strong case to Guyon Espiner on Morning Report this morning that Housing New Zealand’s building arm, which he described as having “developed impressive capacity,” should be merged with his “big delivery vehicle” for housing building, the urban development authority, which is the policy he took into the election; and, if so, will he take the proposition back to Cabinet and have another go?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member will just have to wait and see. There will be more decisions on this in the new year. But he can be assured that under this Government, our priority is building more State houses, not selling them off.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What further flip-flops and backtracks should the New Zealand public expect on housing, given that every drum-beating—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That question’s finished. If the member wants to try another one, he can.

Dr Deborah Russell: Has the Government inherited any vacant Housing New Zealand land, and how is he working to get that issue moving in the right direction?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. Incredibly, nearly 70 hectares of Housing New Zealand land is vacant nationwide, including 25 hectares where there were no plans for redevelopment. Much of this land sat unused for year after year under the last Government. Housing New Zealand couldn’t afford to develop it because they were being milked for dividends by the National Government. I’m working with Housing New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford, it is very important for the order of this House that you at least glance in the Chair’s direction, and the member should know that his mike is turned off at the point I stand up, so he does look a bit foolish on the television, mouthing with no sound.

Mining on Conservation Land—Access Agreements for New and Existing Mines

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Conservation: Will access agreements on conservation land be possible for existing mining permits in the future, as is currently the case?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): This Government and this Minister act in accordance with the law, and applications for access arrangements will be dealt with under the law as it stands at the time.

Jonathan Young: Does she agree with the Minister for Rural Communities, Damien O’Connor, who said, regarding mining on conservation land, “that current mines would not be closed down.”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes.

Hon Maggie Barry: Can the Minister confirm her response to the Prime Minister’s statement that there’d be no new mines on conservation land, when she’s quoted as saying, “the policy only related to new mines,” and that existing mines like Te Kuha would not be affected?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I’m not aware of Te Kuha being an existing mine.

Marama Davidson: Why is the Minister committed to this Government’s policy of no new mining on conservation land?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Public conservation lands are set aside for the preservation and protection of natural resources. We have a biodiversity crisis, with 4,000 species threatened or at risk of extinction. This Government is committed to protecting the places they live, and there is strong public support for that.

Hon Maggie Barry: Can the Minister confirm that the Te Kuha application is now dead?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: That member should be aware that until the Minister has considered an access application and made a decision on it, the Minister will not comment on that to avoid prejudging it. But there is no—[Interruption]

Jonathan Young: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m afraid the member’s supplementary has just been used by the Hon Maggie Barry.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the spirit of Christmas, and acknowledging also the Hon Simon Bridges’ recent further entry into fatherhood, I seek leave of the House to table this most excellent Advent calendar, which, unfortunately, he and Mr Joyce will have to share, and we know they’re not very good at that.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the calendar be tabled—at least for a short time. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none, and it’s my expectation that, soon after the tabling, someone who wants it will take it away.

Bills

Overseas Investment Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 February 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during every evening on a day where there is a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

First, I would like to thank Treasury, the Overseas Investment Office, and other agencies for their hard and quality work at short notice on an urgent matter. This bill implements the Government’s commitment to ban overseas buyers from purchasing existing New Zealand homes. The purpose of the Overseas Investment Act, as set out in its purpose statement, is to acknowledge that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets. The Government considers that residential land and homes are sensitive assets, and, therefore, that overseas persons should be able to acquire them only in certain tightly defined circumstances where that acquisition is for the benefit of New Zealand.

We think it is the birthright of New Zealanders to own our houses as well as our farms. We believe that our homes should be traded on a New Zealand market, not an international one, and to us this applies at all levels of the market. Our best homes and farms should be purchased by our most successful New Zealanders, and our most modest homes should be also be purchased by New Zealanders so that as many New Zealanders as possible have a chance to achieve the Kiwi Dream of homeownership.

New Zealand First as well as Labour and the Greens believe those who are committed to our country are those who should have the privilege of buying our homes, and that they should not be able to be outbid by wealthier people from overseas. We know that more and more of the world’s wealth is accumulating in the hands of a very small minority—less than 1 percent. We know from the Panama Papers and from Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century that many of these people pay low or no tax on their income overseas. In the face of that reality, the Government has the right and the duty to protect their local citizens from overseas accumulators of wealth impacting on the New Zealand housing market. Therefore, this bill brings residential land within the category of “sensitive land” in the Overseas Investment Act.

National said this could not be done. They said that we had to choose in this country between trade agreements and controlling who buys New Zealand homes. They misled New Zealanders before and during the election. Todd McClay said a ban would force New Zealanders to renegotiate many of our trade agreements, and we would likely lose some trade access as a result of renegotiations, which would harm New Zealand companies and Kiwi jobs. It was National who abandoned the prior consensus on trade. It was National who tried to wedge Labour by forcing us to give up on our belief in trade and/or our desire to keep New Zealand homes in a New Zealand market. And New Zealanders will now see that the current Government, the new Government, has shown them to be wrong, and shown the last Government, the last National-led Government, to have been either disingenuous or incompetent—and I think history shows the answer is probably both.

The changes that we will make will ensure that more New Zealanders own their own home, and that over time, fewer Kiwis pay rent to overseas landlords. It means that more can aspire to homeownership and have a stronger stake in their communities, as well as building their assets and wealth here in New Zealand. This bill recognises and reaffirms that it is not a right of overseas buyers to own a home here.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Whoever said there was?

Hon DAVID PARKER: National, effectively, did, Dr Smith. National said we couldn’t do it, and we have. National made no effort to leave the option open to future Governments, and we have opened a door. If this had not been done before the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) came into effect, it could, in effect, never be done. What was happening was that National were trading New Zealanders’ rights to control who buys homes in their country down the river for ever, and they were pretending that there was no alternative option open to the Government. It was a disgrace.

Treasury’s regulatory impact statement correctly notes that this law has been hastily drafted.

Hon Steven Joyce: Rushed.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Rushed—that’s correct, Mr Joyce; rushed because of the incompetence of Mr Joyce’s Government. Because National did not preserve the country’s interests under TPP, we’ve had to tidy this area of law up urgently before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into effect.

We are keeping faith with New Zealand voters. Under this law, as we said—as we’ve always said—if you’ve got the right to live here, you’ve got the right to buy here. That was our line, and we’ve maintained this. Under this law, only New Zealand and Australian citizens, and permanent residents of both countries—

Hon Simon Bridges: And Korea.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —living in New Zealand, will be able to buy an existing home in New Zealand. Now, Simon Bridges just said “And Korea.” Wrong again. You should have read your Cabinet papers, or made sure that you had Cabinet Minister colleagues who knew their business. They didn’t. Only New Zealand and Australian citizens, and permanent residents of both countries that are living in New Zealand, will be able to buy an existing home in New Zealand without going through screening from the Overseas Investment Office. Citizens will be exempted from screening regardless of where they reside.

Permanent residents of New Zealand and Australia, in order to be exempt, will need to be ordinarily resident in New Zealand. For residential land purchases, this means they will have to have a permanent resident visa and have resided in New Zealand for the last 12 months, and have been present in New Zealand for at least 183 days in that period. Effectively, that means they’ve got to be tax residents. They’ve got to have been putting their shoulder to the wheel of the New Zealand economy, if they’re not a citizen, rather than using New Zealand as a bolt-hole and not contributing to the taxes that maintain our roads, and our hospitals, and our schools, and all of the social services that make this a great place to live.

Residents who have not achieved permanent residence will be able to apply to the Overseas Investment Office for consent to buy a home, provided they show a commitment to reside in New Zealand. The scope of this test and criteria to determine the commitment will be defined in regulations. Applicants granted consent will be restricted to buying one home, which they must live in. If they leave New Zealand, then they’ve got to sell it within 12 months. Issues in respect of Singapore are being worked through. Anyone else will not be able to purchase residential land or houses to live in.

Overseas investment persons can apply to the Overseas Investment Office to develop residential land in a way that will benefit the country by adding to housing supply. In particular, they’ll be allowed to purchase residential land if they can demonstrate to the office’s satisfaction that they will increase housing supply through their investment in and commitment to sell the properties that they will build, or through expanding long-term accommodation facilities, such as a retirement village; or that they will convert land to a non-residential use, such as a commercial development or a motel, and they can show the development will be beneficial to New Zealand.

The new definition of “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” and the commitment to reside in New Zealand will apply to the screening of all transactions that include residential land, including land that’s already screened for sensitive land purposes for other reasons—for example, lakefront land over 0.4 hectares. The screening tests and compliance enforcement measures that are in the bill associated with the operation of the rules will be conducted by the Overseas Investment Office. The bill enhances information-gathering and enforcement powers of the office that are actually already needed in respect of other areas of investment screening.

In addition to the proposals in the current bill, the Government’s also investigating other potential changes, which, if necessary, will have to be done by Supplementary Order Paper, because we lose the space otherwise to do it once TPP comes into effect. This Government welcomes foreign direct investment that adds to the productive output of this economy, but investment in existing residential houses does not, and in the future will not be allowed.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that when a speaker rises to deliver a speech on a first reading, and then relies heavily on emotive and provocative statements, either there is something very wrong with that bill, or the bill itself is totally ineffective—and both cases apply to this bill today. In another time, we might have described it as a Clayton’s bill, meaning that it is something that proclaims to do something that it doesn’t. In this case it is a ban that’s not a ban. The exclusions that the Minister has spoken of are extensive. The provisions the Minister speaks of that are supposedly to tighten up have existed for a very long time. Further, while we know about Labour and New Zealand First having a generally xenophobic attitude to property ownership in this country, the facts about who buys land in this country do not bear out the suggestion that that alone is the cause for rising property prices in New Zealand.

Indeed, we’re now at a stage where many people throughout the country are finding that their equity was not quite as good as it was just a few months ago, because of the sort of rhetoric that we’ve just heard from the Minister this afternoon. I think it’s interesting to note that if you look at the last quarter’s real estate sales in New Zealand, there were only 3 percent of properties that were in part owned by foreign buyers. The vast majority of those were Australians, who this bill carves out and will no longer be reported on. So that tells you immediately that the actual number is probably even lower.

Then there are the carve-outs for people who supposedly are making better use of the land. The Minister mentioned residential retirement villages. Well, why is it OK for foreigners to own residential retirement villages, where New Zealanders buy occupation licences that give them so few rights that apparently the new Government is concerned about, to the extent that they’re putting up a member’s bill to try and change some of those things? It just doesn’t make sense.

I think when you look further into the concerns expressed by Treasury when they were doing the regulatory impact statement, that should start to ring alarm bells. While a lot of people like to sling off at Treasury—and I’ve been guilty of that myself, only on one or two occasions and generally quite right to do so—they are intelligent people who do consider things on the broader scale and in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealand’s economy. When they say to a Government, “We have some concerns about this. We think the process is too rushed, and we think there could be some unintended consequences.”, then it’s important, on an issue like this, that the Government of the day listens. If the Government of the day won’t listen, as they aren’t, and they’re simply boxing ahead and putting the bill on the Table of the House and expecting us to deal with it today, then it becomes all the more important that there is a considered scrutiny by the select committee.

What we’re hearing is that they don’t want that. The Government don’t want that scrutiny. They want to turn around this bill by February. So the Parliament will only be back in session for a couple of weeks and the bill will be back in the House and no doubt rammed through its final stages. Well, we’re going to discuss that this afternoon. I think some of the other parties supporting this need to think very carefully about how they are going to present in that circumstance. These are parties that have long raged about due process being exercised in this country, but so far have participated in a record of a Government that has very little regard for due process, let alone transparency.

I want to particularly express concern about the statement made by the Hon David Parker, suggesting that this side of the House considered it an absolute right for foreign buyers to come into this country. Let me tell the House this afternoon that this side of the House has never considered it an absolute right for foreign buyers to come into this country and acquire land. The mere fact that this side of the House has been so assiduous in pursuing Treaty of Waitangi settlements is testament to the fact that we have never believed that there is an absolute right for foreigners to acquire land in New Zealand. The other side of the House appear to have forgotten that.

I also think it’s worth noting that this bill starts to put all the onus on people outside of the Overseas Investment Office for compliance. So people who are in conveyancing, real estate agents, any kind of land agency at all are going to be responsible for making sure that the person who is buying a property is qualified to do so. The fine for failing in that regard will be $20,000. Why would anybody want to put themselves in that position of risk? So what that comes down to is that this is some kind of a pernicious action designed to frighten off people from either seeking to sell their property to a legitimate buyer or to discourage those agencies to desist from that process. It might be someone wanting to sell their family home because they’re moving on to one of those rest homes owned by a foreign buyer, which apparently is permitted under this bill. On the one hand, they’ll be able to do that, but on the other hand, not able to get that sale because potentially the support services for them being able to make that acquisition will be fearful of the pernicious actions that could be brought down upon them.

I think the other thing that’s very interesting that I’d just like to touch on is the fact that in this bill there is also a provision for what’s referred to as a standing consent. Now, that means that a foreign buyer can come in and tell the Government—because that’s who they’re really talking to—that they have these intentions for land that they’re going to buy. It could be that they want to build the retirement village that I spoke of before. They might want to build some other kind of infrastructure asset. They might want to do some intensive farming. Who knows what that land use might be. If the Government of the day considers that that might be a good thing for New Zealand, then they can grant one of these standing consents. That will mean that that applicant then does not go through this long process. They simply go out and make the purchases they want.

So when the Minister comes into the House and says that it is a ban on foreign ownership of land and residential property in New Zealand, because the Government believes that that’s a right that should be exclusive to New Zealanders and New Zealand residents, it is a load of rubbish to think that that will ever be achieved through the provisions of this bill. It’s almost impossible for it to occur. So, just for a moment, imagine how many people might decide that these—what are they called again?—standing consents would be a good idea for them. Then they will go through and deal with the Overseas Investment Office at the moment, and what we know is that it is apparently a long process. It’s not something that gets rushed. It’s a process that does have a high degree of consideration to it, and we know also that not everybody gets through the hoop. So what that’ll have to tell us is that this office will need to be substantially more resource demanding.

We’re told, also, that the initial estimated cost could be $3 million a year—that doesn’t sound too much—but then it could rise to $10 million a year, and then more and more after that. So if one was to assume that the Government was going to recoup the cost of applications from applicants, that indicates an expectation that there’ll be far more applicants to buy land in New Zealand who are of a foreign nationality or tax status than we have at the moment.

This is not a good bill. It’s a messy bill, it reflects the fact that it’s been done at high pace without consideration for everything that needs to go into it, and, worse still, the Government’s desire to push it through with only the remotest and slightest select committee consideration. National will not be supporting the bill.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not alerting you to a slight change in the batting order. Part of what the honourable member Mr Brownlee talks about deserves my support, certainly the part about being vigilant against officials’—to borrow a term given to me by a former National Minister—treacle-riddled feet. And the member’s now standing. That’s very important, that we remain vigilant as Ministers. But this bill will pass, and I just want to remind the House: where do we get our mandate to make such a fundamental change towards property ownership in New Zealand and the numbers of non-Kiwis holding such a privilege? We fought an election on this particular issue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And who got the most votes? Who got the most votes?

Hon SHANE JONES: We brought to the attention of the public our desire to restrict the ability of international purchasers to bid Kiwis out of existence and to thwart the ambitions of garden-variety Kiwi households to become property owners.

Now, I know that certain elements on the other side of the House are still wending their way through the stages of grief, and we are unlikely to see an immediate cessation from the Nelson member, but the reality is we’ve been given the privilege of governing for three years, and a cardinal feature of this side of the House and their narrative is that there will no longer be the ability for all and sundry to rock up to New Zealand and to imagine that they can buy multiples of houses and leave them vacant and pursue a non-taxable gain whilst there are people living in cars and in other dire circumstances in Auckland.

So this bill will pass. Why are we doing it? Governments are entitled to make big fundamental calls, and this Government, through this bill, is exercising that right. Now, when the bill goes to the select committee, no doubt people will endeavour to change some of the provisions. Some might say they’re too restrictive. Some might say we shouldn’t let Aussies enjoy the privilege that we ordinary Kiwis have. That can all be teased through in the select committee, and that select committee will ensure that we meet the time commitment foisted upon us by that side of the House in relation to the ill-conceived Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, being a supporter of international trade, my good self, does not mean that our rules and regulations should completely open the gate and leave Kiwis constantly outbid.

I won’t refer to any particular transaction that might be exercising the minds of us in the House, but know this: the housing market in New Zealand, the homeownership market in New Zealand, is now going to change. We are desirous of creating a market that is driven to suit, driven to fulfil, the interests of us Kiwis, of us putting our interests first before an unmitigated flood of people continue to bring their money here and continue to outbid Kiwis seeking the most simplest of opportunities: to house their families, their whānau, and their children.

It might be said that there is a case for expanding the rights of other migrants when they come to New Zealand to enjoy the privilege of homeownership. I say to their advocates, and I say to the other side of the House as they look for people who will continue to find reasons to oppose this bill—which will, actually, because of arithmetic and the coalition agreement, pass, irrespective of what select committee it goes to; irrespective of what mischief members of that select committee might get up to.

Now, the reality is once this bill gets there, this bill will actually affirm that New Zealand—unlike the other side of the House, this side of the House is going to affirm New Zealand is not for sale. That side of the House ran a political narrative. They ran an ideology where they were prepared to put Kiwis to the side in order to accommodate overseas interests at the expense of Kiwi interests. Those days are over. Now, in another three years we’ll have an audit—it’s called an election—but by that time this bill will be law.

Let me talk a little about Mr Parker. Mr Parker said we as a Government are particularly keen on seeing a continuation of foreign direct investment. For those reasons, as the House’s hard-working forestry Minister, it has been my desire, and we’re making a wee bit of traction, to ensure that people who want to come and invest in the country, in particular in forestry, have not only the opportunity but they have, not quite a primrose road, but the opportunity is there for them to come, invest in New Zealand, grow the forest estate, increase the size of the nation’s lung, to deal with the consequences of Mr Nick Smith and others failing on the climate change front for many, many years.

But I want to let no Kiwi leave their time whilst listening to this speech—that those days of overseas capital coming into the country in an unfettered form are over. Should applicants bear the cost of wending their way through the Overseas Investment Office process? Absolutely. Should the professional providers of services, such as lawyers, real estate agents, and accountants—well, it’s the last regime that imposed those costs on them anyway, through anti - money-laundering, so it’s not as if these professional service providers are strangers to the fact that they already have to provide that level of reassurance if they want to continue to trade in that particular service area.

In the process of the select committee, there will be particular concerns expressed: “Is this too cumbersome a process?” Now, the reality is, if you want the privilege of owning assets in our country, accept that for this category of asset the rules have changed. If you don’t like those rules, then you have an option to reflect your preferences in three years’ time. But in the select committee we are not going to be bullied by the other side of the House corralling, stimulating, and exciting people—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that is an extremely unreasonable allegation that’s just been made by the Hon Shane Jones. There is a select committee process; those processes are always held with a high degree of decorum, and for him to make the statement he has I think is deeply offensive.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I must confess I was slightly concerned about some of the imputations in the Minister’s speech about the processes. Parliament makes these decisions, and select committees are the creatures of Parliament, and Parliament votes, in the end, on legislation.

Hon SHANE JONES: Thank you very much. Yes, observing the sensibilities of the honourable member Brownlee, however, the reality is that after the select committee process has taken place—and it’s a load of nonsense to suggest that the select committee process, truncated though it might be, is demeaning the integrity of the House. That is not only fiction; that is to continue a line of reasoning that suggests that when that side of the House pursued that strategy, somehow it had a greater level of virtue.

The category of applicant who is a permanent resident is actually quite an interesting question, because there are variations and gradations of people who hold different migrant permits—if I can use it and visas in that term. But we have started, in this bill—and subject, as you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, to what the select committee eventually reports back to the House and how the House actually votes—with a very narrow definition, because we do not believe that we should water down the privileges of New Zealand citizenship and the opportunities for Aussie residents coming over here, or permanent residents.

But, beyond that, it’s up to an applicant to make their case; it’s up to a submitter to make their case to the select committee, but that case will bump into a political reality. The political reality is that this side of the House fought an election to put Kiwis first. This side of the House is not going to back down just because of the ideological pretensions of our Opposition colleagues, and, as Mr Parker has said, the rules and the game have changed. We have not a doubt in our mind that we have a mandate to introduce this bill. We also have the numbers to cause this bill to rewrite the rules of fairness and equity in New Zealand, in particular as they pertain to sensitive land and, now, housing. The bill is a success and I’m sure it will pass.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): I’d like to acknowledge the previous member Shane Jones’ contribution. I’ve always been a fan of Shane Jones personally, but can I say I was pretty disturbed by his approach to both the select committee and to this House in terms of respect for it, in terms of the attitude of passing this bill and declaring that it will go through regardless. We are going to have a subsequent debate about the time this bill spends at select committee, but the suggestion by just the second Government speaker on this bill that it is perfect as it is—that it has come to this House and that nobody should be persuaded of any different—does actually fly in the face of the way this whole idea was developed, which is strange in the very least.

I can remember back on 31 October when it was first announced. There was absolutely no paperwork at that time from the Government at all. It was announced at a post-Cabinet press conference. It didn’t have any details whatsoever. There were no Cabinet minutes. There were no Cabinet papers. There was literally nothing. At that stage, it became clear that it was a bright idea of Mr Parker’s, where he could see he was going to struggle with our trade agreements and so he decided to do a little run-around end game, and instead of actually banning residential house sales, he would instead just declare them as sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act. Like a lot of these bright ideas that people come up with, when it actually comes to show time, they are a lot less than they seem. And so it is with this particular piece of legislation.

But don’t just listen to me; listen to Treasury, who are not prone to hyperbole. But it’s got to be said, this particular regulatory impact assessment is quite damning in Treasury-speak. Firstly, it notes on the very front page that “This version was prepared for consideration by Cabinet on 11 December … further policy changes were made subsequent to this meeting. The Treasury has not had an opportunity to assess the impacts of those changes.” So here we are with a bill that’s come to this House where the agency that’s responsible for preparing the regulatory impact statement says, “We’ve got no idea.”

They go further than that, actually. They say, “some of the design choices may be sub-optimal or have unintended consequences; the Overseas Investment Office will only have limited time to operationalize the policy; and [there will also be] limited time to educate real estate agents, conveyancers and the general public.” That’s the quality of this bill according to Treasury. It’s a fascinating little read, this regulatory impact statement, because it’s asked about the problem definition: “What problem or opportunity does this proposal seek to address?” The problem is that the Government’s announced it, and Treasury says, “Well, we have to implement it because it’s the Government’s 100-day commitment to ‘ban overseas speculators from buying existing houses’ ”. That’s the instruction Treasury was given. That was the extent of it. They weren’t even allowed to offer alternative policies; they were simply told: “Do this. Write up the report. We don’t really care that you don’t agree with it; we’ll just flush it through the system.” Now, according to Minister Jones, it doesn’t matter what people say at the select committee, it doesn’t matter what people say in this House; this bill is going through unchanged because the other side of the House has more votes than this side of the House. Well, that is very—if I could even use the term—arrogant lawmaking, before we’ve hardly started this Parliament. It’s very strange indeed.

In actual fact, there’s a whole range of things here that don’t make any sense at all. For a start, the whole definition of the problem is wrong—the whole definition of the problem is incorrect. The Labour Party, and New Zealand First in particular, over the last few years have maintained that foreign house-buyers are the problem. Yet, every Government department that’s come up and looked at that—including Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), which has now done some comprehensive data over a significant period of time—says the most overseas-based buyers, including Australians, make up of transactions is about 3 percent, and the most sellers make up of transactions is also about 3 percent. The net effect of these particular participants in the housing market is about nil. So the whole problem definition falls apart at that point.

Now, I appreciate there are many New Zealanders that think it’s a problem, which is why we go and get the data to ascertain whether it is a problem. I also can observe or reflect that, actually, there are some New Zealanders who might think it was a problem in the past. Actually, the previous Government did make significant changes in this area. If you go and talk to the real estate agents, they will tell you that the two most significant changes in this area have already been made: the introduction of a withholding tax on all sales by foreign owners to ensure they pay the correct amount of tax on their gains if they actually speculate, and also introducing the regular monitoring of foreign-based buyers through LINZ and requiring foreign buyers to be registered with the IRD.

If members opposite would go and talk to any real estate agent, they will tell them that those particular changes stopped foreign speculators—true foreign speculators, not just foreign buyers—from participating in the New Zealand economy. Sadly, what is often the way in politics, the rhetoric is still ahead of the reality. The rhetoric is—on the left and New Zealand First, wherever they position themselves—they’re still a problem, but the reality has long since solved the problem, and, yet, here we are.

Now, we’ll get, as I say, the opportunity to debate how long this bill should be spending at select committee, but there are a lot of things we need to look at. For example, apparently, because all residential property has now been classified as sensitive land, an apartment on the fourth floor of a building is now sensitive land, which is intriguing. I didn’t realise it was land at all, but, apparently, if you build an apartment, you have created land. Now that is exciting. I think I might go out and generate some land—persuade some investors that I could build a multi-storey apartment and we would then have some land.

But there’s a more serious aspect to that. We want to see apartments built, particularly in our biggest city. That means encouraging investors to come in and buy off the plans, and, in a suburb not far from where I live, that’s exactly what they do. Yet, now, they will not have as big a market to sell those apartments later on. That’s a significant issue.

Then we have things such as luxury lodges. A lot of people, investors from overseas—and I note that the Minister for Regional Economic Development glossed over this one—invest in luxury lodges. How are they caught? Are they caught in this process? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.

Then we have probably the most telling aspect of this thing overall: the Minister of Forestry, who is also the Minister for Regional Economic Development, proudly stating that he’s been able to get a carve-out for forestry because forestry’s important. We want to attract investment in forestry; we just don’t want to attract investment in housing. Why would we? We don’t want more houses! Oh, hang on, we do. Hang on, Phil Twyford wants more houses but, unlike Shane Jones, he didn’t get to organise a carve-out for more houses. He got a carve-out for forestry. So we can go and live in the trees. The point is this: if, actually, there is investment required, we do somehow find an exemption. This could be described as the “David Parker (I Get To Give Permission About Who Owns Land In This Country) Bill”. That’s actually what this bill is all about. There are good investors and bad investors and the good investors will be determined by David Parker, and the bad investors can take a running jump because he doesn’t like them. And I actually don’t think that’s good for New Zealand.

There is a good case for people having the opportunity to invest, but, again, not in speculation. Let me remind the House, speculation has already been dealt to. This is now dealing with people who might live here for six months a year. Those people might want to invest in regional New Zealand, Minister Jones, but they’re not getting the chance to.

There is going to be lots to investigate about this rather shoddily put together bill, and I look forward to the debate where we discuss exactly how long it goes to select committee. Thank you.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party. As Minister for Land Information, I’ve been involved in the preparation of the bill, and was very pleased to announce some of its details with Minister Twyford last week.

I think the Opposition should realise that it is going to select committee and that submissions to the select committee will be listened to, they will be read carefully. But the problem that the Opposition has created for this Government is in its failure to deal with this issue of overseas speculation in houses in New Zealand—in its failure to recognise that there should have been action taken to protect New Zealanders’ rights to buy houses here from prices being inflated by overseas speculators. The Opposition said, during the election campaign, that it couldn’t act to close the loopholes here—that there was nothing it could do. This Government has decided to do something about it, and the reason for speed is, of course, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the agreements around that. There is a narrow window. We need to be able to have this legislation introduced and considered by the Parliament before that agreement is ratified. So it is all of the Opposition’s making—the need for speed with this legislation. But it is going to select committee, and can I assure Mr Joyce that the submissions and comments that are made at select committee will be carefully considered.

Again, Mr Joyce, it’s not Mr Parker that will be deciding on the day-to-day operation of this bill—another mistake. It’s actually the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) as part of Land Information New Zealand. This bill delivers on the commitment that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens made to bring house prices back within reach of New Zealanders. We want to make it easier for New Zealanders to afford a home, but offshore property speculators have been a factor in pushing up Kiwi house prices and pushing Kiwi homebuyers out of the market.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: There is no evidence of that. That is not true.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Dr Smith is disagreeing with that. But in an unstable world, capital flows to areas where it’s seen as safe and secure for investment, and New Zealand is seen as a safe and secure country for investment. Now, that is a good thing. As Minister Parker said, we welcome overseas investment that brings benefits to New Zealand, that adds to our economy, that helps create jobs, and that gives us access to technology that we wouldn’t otherwise have access to. But capital also flows to where people get returns, and speculators have been investing capital here and that’s not good for our economy or for the well-being of New Zealanders. It drives up house prices, more than in Australia; it forces Kiwis out of the market; and, increasingly, the dream of homeownership for young New Zealanders has been just that—a dream.

National said, “Nah, can’t do anything about it. We’d breach the trade agreements. We can’t act.”, so they didn’t try. This Government is giving every effort to making a very good try to protect houses for New Zealanders and to reduce that pressure that occurs with overseas speculation, and we’re also taking action to strengthen the whole regime around overseas investment, so that the OIO is no longer a rubber stamp. We took the first step in that direction with the changes to the ministerial directive to the Overseas Investment Office in November, which ensured that any sales of rural land above 5 hectares needed permission. Previously, it was rubber-stamped. That’s changed.

This bill is the second step in the Government’s proposals and efforts to make sure that we tighten the regime around overseas investment. It’s a strong, effective, and united response—unlike the Opposition’s—because it’s based on our shared priorities as a Government for this country. It’s not about restricting or discouraging those who want to make their home in New Zealand and want to make a real contribution to this country. It’s about stopping overseas speculation, so that when house prices lift again, there’s not additional pressure put by these investors coming into the market.

So what this bill means is that New Zealand citizens and permanent residents can buy and own their own home without going through the screening process through the Overseas Investment Office, and so can those permanent residents who’ve been living in New Zealand for 183 days of the last 12 months. But other overseas investors and other classes of residence visa holders will actually have to go through a screening process with the OIO, and that will be if they can show that they’ve got a commitment to live in New Zealand, if they’re actually increasing the housing supply by building houses and then selling them, or if they’re going to use land and convert it to a use such as a retirement village, student accommodation, or other long-term accommodation.

Now, Mr Brownlee talked about the standing consents. That is a sensible provision in the bill to ensure that those overseas investors who are investing in things like this long-term accommodation or doing a number of subdivision and housing developments can actually get on and do that. They don’t have to go through the process each time, but they will have to show that they are of good character and meet the other tests in the Act.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s different?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It’s very different, Mr Brownlee, because at the moment, if you’re on a temporary visa—if you’re a student visa holder—you can buy land. At the moment, if you are a trust, you can buy land. This bill closes that significant gap that overseas trusts—where there’s more than a 25 percent control or influence by an overseas person—will actually have to go through this legislation. This closes a major loophole that the former Government left.

Mr Brownlee, this bill applies to land that’s classified as residential or lifestyle. So we did the work around the rural land, and now this bill’s dealing with residential and lifestyle land, and yes, it does include apartment blocks. Yes, it does include apartments in apartment blocks, because otherwise that’s creating a loophole.

So people who aren’t New Zealand citizens, who aren’t permanent residents, will have to go through this screening process, and the OIO is the most appropriate body to do that screening, because they’ve got a recognised process for assessing the fitness of people to invest in New Zealand—the good-character test—and they’ve got the skilled staff to do the job. Yes, it will cost more, but we need to invest more in the Overseas Investment Office if it is to do its job properly. There had been a small increase in the office staff under the previous Government, but there will be a bigger increase, obviously, to apply this legislation.

So there are three pathways to actually being able to buy a home if you haven’t got permanent residence—if you’re not a permanent resident. Those classes are being actually able to show that you’re going to live permanently in New Zealand and that you’ve got a genuine commitment to this country; that you’re doing a new build or development work, as long as those properties are sold; or that you’re buying residential land for development as a non-residential use.

So there’s a provision in the bill—which I hope the select committee will look closely at—around the regulation-making powers for Ministers. That will enable regulations to define any other categories of residence visa where the holders of those visas can apply to the OIO to purchase residential land, and the tests that would operate there. So we’re certainly open to discussion as to how those tests will work. We’ll look closely at the submissions that come in to select committee because we want to make sure that those tests are right, and we don’t want to discourage people who’ve got a genuine desire to live in New Zealand and contribute to this country.

This country has suffered long enough from an overseas investment regime that is loose and that has had a rubber stamp approach—an open gate to speculation. We are tightening that regime.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, this is more loose.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, we are—yes we are. The other measure in the legislation is increasing the compliance powers that the Overseas Investment Office will have—something the last Government did nothing about. That involves conveyancers needing to certify that to the best of their knowledge, the purchase is not inconsistent with the proposed rules, and it will mean civil penalties for third parties who are involved in contravening the Act. There will be the ability for the OIO to notify someone that the office has reasonable grounds to believe that they have acquired a property in breach of that Act, and then for that person to sell the property and no further action being taken. There will also be a greater ability for the OIO to acquire information.

The last Government failed to close the loopholes. The last Government wasn’t interested in the OIO having any teeth. This bill helps give them teeth.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there’s been a discernible change in the dialogue around the degree to which we New Zealanders welcome foreign nationals. In days past, I think Auckland would’ve been seen as an urbane, welcoming, cosmopolitan city, and it was the regions—the provinces—that were probably a little bit cautious, a little bit conservative, about people that didn’t look and sound like them. I think, more recently, there’s been a complete flip-over. In Auckland, they are terrified of having more people, and yet, in the provinces, they are absolutely crying out—including, for migrants. They’re saying “Come on in!” to places like Rangitata and Queenstown Lakes and Southland, where we need those workers to help us out and we need their tourism.

I would’ve thought that the parties of the left would’ve defined themselves as the progressive, welcoming ones. But, more recently, we’ve had things like Chinese-sounding surnames and a number of other things, like calls, including from the New Zealand First Party, to slash migration and residence. But I would’ve thought that one call wouldn’t have come from one of the more thoughtful members on the other side, and that’s David Parker. Indeed, he has the distinction of being the Minister for Land Information who approved more foreign sales—more foreign sales—than any other Minister or Government in this country’s history. So, my, how the worm has turned.

I think he also had a reputation for being a thoughtful Minister who passes sensible legislation. Well, I’m sorry, but that reputation is in tatters with this bill. But he did reveal that deep-seated envy of other people’s wealth and initiative and entrepreneurialism. He couldn’t help himself but refer to the 1 percent. It’s an “Envy Bill”. But he’s also mistaken in a fundamental way in this bill. He said, “They’ve got to be tax residents. They’ve got to be making a contribution.”, as if people who have been here for a very, very long time but who are global citizens and travel a lot and are not tax residents aren’t making a contribution—I think that’s an insult to many of the wealth creators in this country. If they’re investing in productive businesses, if they’re paying GST, if they’re paying income tax—excise—then they are making a contribution.

Now, he also said an interesting thing: that if you’ve got the right to live here, you’ve got the right to buy here. Well, again, that is not correct either. It’s not actually correct in respect of the Overseas Investment Act right now when it pertains to the current definition of “sensitive land”. There are a number of people who have been permanent residents of New Zealand for years—25, 30 years—but who are truly global citizens. Indeed, as the Minister of Immigration in the last Government, we attracted those sorts of global entrepreneurs through three different visa categories: the global impact visa, which will bring in 100 of our youngest, brightest entrepreneurs at the start of their business life cycle, to set up businesses here in New Zealand and export them around the world. The chances are, despite being absolutely committed to this country, they may not spend 183 days here. We had the entrepreneur visa; we still do. We have the investor category visas, which have made a significant contribution: billions and billions of dollars of net investment into this country, which creates jobs. It creates exports, and it creates the sort of tax base that the Government uses to provide the social services that this country needs. None of those people, under this legislation, when it’s passed, will even be able to buy a house without jumping through a plethora of hoops.

Currently, Land Information processes overseas investment applications in an average of about five months. The application fee is presently about $22,000. That is the tip of the financial iceberg for anybody wanting to purchase land—sensitive land, lakeside properties, and outstanding landscape areas—if they are currently considered to be overseas buyers. But that’s the tip of the iceberg because there’s a heck of a lot of other consultancy costs and legal fees, and they go through that. We, obviously, invested more in the Overseas Investment Office to make sure that that process was sped up. But when one is buying a 300-, 400-, 500-hectare property on the banks of Lake Wanaka, it’s probably appropriate that they do go through those hoops. These are the guys who will come, set up their businesses, invest millions into this country, and can’t buy a bungalow in Parnell without asking Eugenie Sage for permission.

In fact, the irony of this is that those people—those non-residents—would be able to go and buy significant landholdings that don’t meet the current criteria for sensitive land but wouldn’t be able to buy an apartment in Queenstown. It’s ridiculous, it’s wrong, it’s rushed, and, ironically, it’s not even a ban. As Mr Joyce pointed out—

Hon Shane Jones: It’s politics.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the reason, according to the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—it is politics, Mr Jones. That is the most accurate thing that member has ever said in his political career. This is politics pure and simple.

It says, in the RIS, that the problem definition, as Mr Joyce pointed out, was that the proposal seeks to implement the Government’s 100-day commitment to “ban overseas speculators”. Well, it won’t do that; it will just put a massive, massive hurdle in front of them. They’re likely not only to not buy that house but many of them are likely to turn away and say, “Well, I’m not going to invest the millions of dollars I was going to in New Zealand, in the forest that Mr Jones wants to plant, in the hotels that the Minister of Tourism wants to build.” They simply won’t come.

Now, I don’t think they care too much about that, but what they do care about is urban development. The confusion, in this bill and in the RIS, about whether or not urban development is encouraged or allowed or disallowed is just that: it’s completely confusing. On the one hand, it says, “Well, if you make a net contribution to our housing stock, we’ll allow that.” But they won’t allow that unless you go through these massive hurdles—hurdles that aren’t currently in place for non - tax resident developers who are developing special housing areas all around the country. But the thing about this that worries me the most is in relation to hotel development.

The last significant hotel built in Queenstown is a unit-title development where the room owners lease back to the hotel managers but have a right to reside in that room for a few weeks a year. Now, that’s a reasonably common model for the development of hotels, and we are short of—what, I can’t remember—8,000 hotel rooms at the moment, and climbing, thanks to demand. Now, for rating purposes, those rooms are designated “residential”. So it would be caught by this new law as it is written. Most sites in Queenstown on which future hotel development is being proposed are zoned “high-density residential”. So, presumably, it would be designated “residential” for rating purposes and caught by the terms of this Act.

Effectively, what that means is that anybody wanting to come in and meet that massive demand for hotel development will not be able to do so if they are a non - tax resident without jumping through a massive number of hoops. Bear in mind that it won’t be one application for the hotel; it’ll be one application to the Overseas Investment Office for every single room in the hotel that is proposed to be owned by an overseas buyer. I don’t think even the super cautious in the party of “the Chinese-sounding surname” intended that to be the case, but here’s the problem, and we are going to debate this at the end of this first reading: the shortened report-back date gives us precious little opportunity to understand how many other hand grenades are deeply buried in this legislation.

I have no doubt, in the short time that I’ve had to analyse the bill and talk to people in the development industry in that part of the country, that this is clearly an issue that has to be dealt with. I’ve got no doubt that there are many, many more concerning aspects of this that are simply going to turn people away from investing in New Zealand. The house tail will wag the business investment dog if we’re not very careful. These guys will take their cheque books and go somewhere else. They love this country, but if we tie them up in red tape in the way that this bill will currently do, we run the risk of completely undermining the very thing that we want to do, and that is to make this country better for New Zealanders.

The intent is flawed, the thinking is flawed and simply wrong, and this bill is bad. We must oppose it.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill, and I’d like to thank and acknowledge the Hon David Parker for all of his work in bringing this legislation to the House. I’d also like to thank the Overseas Investment Office as well as Treasury for drafting this legislation and having it in front of us.

The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill puts in place one of our promises for the first 100 days, and it will have a significant impact on managing the demand for housing and reducing speculation in our housing market. We are in this position of having to implement one of these policies, which is one of many that we’re introducing—but it is to address the housing crisis that we find ourselves in.

This bill is about restoring the Kiwi Dream of homeownership for New Zealanders. The objective of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill is to ensure that our housing market here in Aotearoa New Zealand is shaped primarily by New Zealanders. We cannot continue to have foreign speculators buying up our houses that should be open to New Zealanders, to New Zealand families, and to New Zealand’s first-home buyers, first and foremost. Allowing this to continue is the equivalent of pouring oil on to the fire that has become our housing market, after the last nine years of the previous National Government’s neglect in the housing area.

The goal for this policy is to ensure that our housing market is shaped by New Zealand buyers. This will make our homes more affordable for New Zealand’s first-home buyers, while also supporting our efforts to build a more productive economy, by helping redirect capital for productive uses.

We welcome foreign investment. We welcome foreign investment that brings benefits to New Zealand. However, we would like to encourage foreign investment where it adds to our economy. Investment in residential land by those who do not have a right to reside in this country indefinitely, and have absolutely no intention of living here, does not contribute to this objective. The new investment legislation that we’re proposing brings residential land within the category of sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act. This will not affect New Zealanders. It would not affect New Zealand citizens, regardless of whether they live here in Aotearoa New Zealand or if they reside overseas. New Zealanders will continue to be able to buy houses without any screening from the Overseas Investment Office. New Zealand permanent residents, as well, will be able to buy houses if they’re living here or if they reside overseas. At least, if they’ve been present in New Zealand for at least 183 days over the previous 12 months, they will still be able to buy a house here if they’re permanent residents.

One of the things that the Labour - New Zealand First - Green coalition Government would like to do is address the fact that our whānau, our brothers and sisters, who live and work here in Aotearoa New Zealand do not currently have the opportunity to be able to buy affordable homes. We want to ensure that they are not continuing to miss out on buying affordable homes. We know that the existing supply of homes, especially affordable homes, in this country is really, really short. We know, from the numbers that we’ve seen as soon as we have gotten into Government, that we are short by at least 71,000 homes across Aotearoa New Zealand. The legislation that we’re introducing, as I said earlier on, is one of a suite of policies to address that. We want to make sure that the housing market in New Zealand is shaped by those of us who live here.

Investment in bricks and mortar by people who do not live here, nor have any intention of moving to permanently live in Aotearoa New Zealand, does not benefit our economy. Auckland is now the fourth most expensive place in the world to buy a house—10 times the median household income. And we know that the average price of a house now in Auckland is over $1 million. This, of course, has happened over the last nine years.

One of the reasons, of course, why we are introducing this legislation, and making sure that it goes to a select committee and that we get the input from the public, is also because of the timing in terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We want to ensure that this legislation is passed prior to that coming into force.

As I said earlier on, we are open to overseas-based buyers purchasing our land for development purposes, but we cannot and we will not continue to allow them to purchase our existing homes, because we are already in severe demand for houses for our own citizens. So overseas purchases will need to be screened, they will need to be approved by the Overseas Investment Office, and in practical terms this means that foreign buyers will not be allowed to buy residential properties. However, they can buy land and they can build a new house on that land, and in doing so they will add to the overall supply of houses in Aotearoa.

This legislation gives us an opportunity to make good on one of our promises and, you know, our coalition Government—we believe that delivering on our promises for the good of all New Zealanders is a good thing. Owning a home is a privilege—one that we want to ensure all New Zealanders have access to. We know that this legislation will help make homes more affordable for all New Zealanders, especially our first-home buyers.

Speculation is playing a role in the rising housing costs in our country, and this legislation will be one way of ensuring that we take the heat out of the housing market. This is, as I said earlier on, just one part of a much more comprehensive plan of approaching the housing market, which includes increasing the supply of affordable homes, ensuring that we have public housing that is affordable and available for people, ensuring that we have urban development, and ensuring that we address homelessness—homelessness; we know we are now number one in the OECD in terms of rates of homelessness. We would also like to ensure that there is an improvement in the quality of housing for all New Zealanders.

This bill is not about deterring genuine people who wish to move to and live and reside in Aotearoa New Zealand on a permanent basis. We welcome all of them who want to come and live and work here, to contribute to our economy, but, as I said earlier on, they’re welcome to come here, buy a piece of land, and build a new house.

One of the speakers earlier on, the Hon Steven Joyce, talked about how this legislation will not work. Well, there are several countries that have already introduced legislation similar to this. Our neighbour, Australia, has passed similar legislation to minimise the effect that foreign speculators have on their housing market. Canada is also another country that has done the same thing. In the case of our Australian counterparts living in New Zealand, we intend to treat Australian citizens and permanent residents in the same way that New Zealand citizens and permanent residents are treated under this Act. What I mean is that this legislation will allow us to give the same benefits to Australians here in New Zealand as New Zealanders get across the—

Hon Tracey Martin: The Ditch.

Hon JENNY SALESA: —the Ditch, in Australia. This Government is very keen to receive public submissions on this bill, including feedback on how different New Zealand residents are treated. It has been necessary to balance the impacts on people that are going to impact and contribute to our society overall.

Our underlying commitment under this amendment that we are introducing is that we have a right to live here. When you have a right to live here, you should also have a right to buy here. With this change we hope to grant more New Zealanders the ability to purchase homes in our country. This change will impact not only our first-home buyers of today, but in addition it will affect first home-buyers and families in the future. Thank you so much.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you. If the Overseas Investment Office was a brewery and they asked the Minister responsible, Eugenie Sage, to organise a party there, I don’t think that she could do it, and that’s quite worrying, although—I do accept that she’s not here now—the Hon Shane Jones would. Every single decision on every single house sale will have to go before that Minister, and that too is very, very concerning. But, you see, Madam Assistant Speaker, the reason every decision must go before that Minister is because this is not a ban. If it was a ban it wouldn’t have to. But in the case where these decisions do need to go before her, it is not a ban. So when the Minister, when he introduced this, becomes flustered during the speech to introduce a bill and then wants to rush it through as quickly as he can during a holiday period, with an extremely limited time for the public to have their say in select committee, we know that we’re in trouble. And when Treasury has significant concerns about the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the bill, and calls into question what it is trying to achieve and whether in fact it will do that—are there unintended consequences?—we know that there is real trouble.

When the Government is more interested in delivering that feel-good factor that started a couple of years ago with the Chinese-sounding names saga—which was heavily discredited, we know—and when they’re willing to do all of this just before Parliament rises, risking trade access and international relationships, then that’s reckless. All of that was David Parker in this House today. You see, Madam Assistant Speaker, this is not a ban; it’s just more process. That’s OK if the Government wants more process and more cost and to send that signal, but when they dress it up as a ban, it’s David Parker who is being disingenuous.

It does risk relationships, and it does risk trade deals. We know that because of the backtracking over Singapore already, and I’m going to come to that in a moment. But, actually, this is a badly drafted piece of legislation that comes from an ill-founded idea based on a preconception that the Chinese are here, buying up houses everywhere and not living in New Zealand and nobody that moves here to invest is contributing, and has been dreamt up in a back room by David Parker, after receiving official advice, which he also received when he sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, when the Korea agreement went through and when the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) legislation was put forward. The officials told him that a ban would ruin trade deals and put at risk our international reputation, and harm New Zealanders overseas when it comes to the trading relationship that they had—well, he’s found a workaround. It’s not a ban; he’s found things that he thinks, sneakily, will be OK with our international partners, and he’s rushing it through the House because he said it needs to be done before the TPP agreement is concluded.

So a simple question for Mr Parker as the trade Minister: just when is that TPP deal going to be done? Because, one, New Zealand First doesn’t want that deal to be done—

Hon Tracey Martin: CPTPP.

Hon TODD McCLAY: They’ll do everything that they can to get in the way of it, and then they won’t vote for it—the TPP. Now we hear “Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership”, but I ask the member opposite: if we put the words “comprehensive and progressive” in the front of New Zealand First, are they progressive and comprehensive? Or are they just only a party that scraped over the line with 7 percent and couldn’t even win a seat in New Zealand. You can rebrand, you can change the name of something, but I’ve got to say that, ultimately, when it comes to the reason that David Parker says he must rush this through and introduce it here because of TPP, when is it going to be done? Because New Zealand exporters would rather see him fighting for better access overseas, not finding a workaround because of the advice he’s had from officials who say this is a very bad idea and would ruin trade deals and stands opposed to trade deals overseas. They want him over there fighting for better access for them.

Why is it that Australia is exempt, if it doesn’t ruin trade deals? And nobody buys into this, you know, that we’re treating Australians the same here as Kiwis are being treated in Australia. Because the first opportunity the new Government had, and the Prime Minister had, to treat Australians the same as Kiwis are in New Zealand, she backtracked and ran away from it. We’ve seen nothing from this Government other than a bit of hyperbole that says, “At the moment, we’re exempting Australians because they are so good to Kiwis.” Well, if it didn’t cut across a trade deal, they wouldn’t be exempting them.

Then we heard, on the first day, “Well, Singapore may be a little bit of an issue, but we can work that out.” And last week, in this House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and, day in and day out, this Government—has been backtracking as fast as they can. If they point towards the South Island, they’re backtracking so quickly they could be in Singapore to explain it to them themselves, because the one thing they didn’t do when they made their great big bold announcement of the ban that’s not a ban was tell Singapore they were doing it. And I know, and this Government knows, and the foreign Minister certainly knows, the Singapore Government—a very good friend of New Zealand—is extremely angry with them, and that’s why we’re seeing backtracking now, and, all of a sudden, Singapore will probably have to be exempt, but don’t worry, we’ll work this through!

Well, here’s a prediction: Korea will be next. And the reason Korea will be next is because if the Government says this is a ban, the trade agreement with Korea says you can’t have a ban. However, that’s the advice the officials would have given. The reason Mr Parker turns up to this House to sneak this through quickly is because it is not a ban; it is just process.

After that, what about China? Well, here’s another prediction: if this current Government is going to say, “This is a ban, and it’s going to affect China as well.”, they’re going to have to give something up during the free-trade agreement upgrade negotiation with China. And here is my prediction: if they’re not going to change their position on China being included—and that’s for them; that’s their business—they’ll have to give something up, and I think that will be better dairy access for our New Zealand dairy farmers into that very important market. They won’t get to have it both ways. I predict here today that they will have no gains on dairy, and then they’ll say, “Well, there’s a very special or particular reason for that.”

We know, in Auckland, that the property market director of the Auckland institute of property said that foreign buyers hadn’t been an issue for some very many years. The reason for that is that the last Government put in place a lot of measures that have had an effect. We know that of all of those measures—having to register with IRD, having to get a bank account and going through the full money-laundering checks and balances—if you sell within a period of time, you have to pay tax up front and then claim it back. We know this is having a big effect, because only about 3 percent of houses sold in New Zealand are bought by foreigners—about the same, more or less, who are also foreigners selling during the same period of time.

But when you take those Chinese-sounding names that the last Government spoke about and you look at the information that’s being collected and you take out those Australians, because the Government has said they will exempt Australians, and you take out the New Zealanders who live overseas but are not tax residents, who would be included in that, the number of foreigners actually buying, particularly from a country like China, is extremely small. So the feel-good factor in this bill is something that the Government is pushing hard on, running the risk of international relationships and also trade. But here’s a question that needs to be dealt with in the select committee—but I think there will be no time—they’ve said that New Zealand citizens will not be covered by this legislation. So how about the New Zealand citizen who’s living overseas and is married to a foreigner, and they’ve bought a house in that country? They’re selling it and they’ve decided to move home to make New Zealand their home with their Kiwi kids, and that foreigner has not been in New Zealand for a year, has not got residence yet—will they be able to buy a family home before they move back?

The answer to that is “No.” So what you’re actually saying to Kiwis overseas, in another country, who want to move back with their Kiwi kids and their spouse who happens to be a foreigner, irrespective of their name, is that they can’t buy a family home before they move back unless Eugenie Sage says so. And I say it to you again: if the Overseas Investment Office was a brewery, that Minister couldn’t organise a party in it. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Willow-Jean Prime.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak briefly, in this split call, to the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. I’m pleased to stand here and talk about this bill, and to talk about this issue that was actually raised with me during the campaign. It may be that it is simply anecdotal evidence that people are relying on, but it was certainly a concern that was raised with me in the Northland electorate, around foreign buyers buying homes in New Zealand, and concerns around rising homelessness in our region.

So what is the problem? The Kiwi Dream of homeownership is slipping away. Only a quarter of all adults under 40 own their own home, compared to half in 1991. Homeownership is at its lowest level in 65 years. Out-of-control house prices are putting homeownership beyond the reach of middle New Zealand. Kiwi homes should not be gambling chips for overseas speculators.

I want to talk about Māori homeownership. The rates of Māori homeownership and Pasifika homeownership have also dropped between 1991 and 2013 by 32 percent and 38 percent respectively. The failing housing market is leading to stark inequality between old people and young people, and the rich and the poor, and it is harming the health of Kiwis, the country’s productivity, and the Government’s books. There are wider social costs, including costs associated with overcrowding and homelessness, and poor educational and labour market outcomes.

Now, there’s been some talk this afternoon about the numbers, the percentage, and, quite frankly, we simply don’t know, and we need to collect real data. And, as has been pointed out, Treasury, in their analysis, said: “Analysis on the likely impact of this policy is constrained by a lack of empirical data, including around current levels of overseas investment in the housing market.” What I have seen from the research that I have done is we simply don’t know, and it could be between 3 to 20 percent.

This is not a silver bullet to our housing crisis—this one bill that we are introducing. However, when you look at it in terms of a wider range of Government policies that we are looking to introduce to address our housing crisis, including the building of 100,000 affordable homes for first-home Kiwi buyers; stopping the sale of State houses; increasing the State housing stock; extending the brightline test; ending the tax loophole; warm, dry, and healthy homes; and a dedicated policy for better homes for Māori—when you look at all of these in totality, it is going to have a huge impact and be a huge benefit to our issue that we currently have around homelessness and our housing crisis in New Zealand.

This Government is prioritising homeownership and housing ability for all New Zealanders. How do we propose to do that? Well, I talked about several initiatives that we are looking at, but in terms of this bill, the purpose of this bill will mean, for practical purposes, that foreign buyers will not be able to buy residential property unless they are either increasing the number of residences and then selling them, or converting land for other use. They will need to be able to show that this will have wider benefits for the country. New Zealand’s housing market needs to be shaped primarily by New Zealanders. Investment in residential land by persons that have no right to reside here and have no intention to live here does not achieve that objective.

I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I look forward to this bill coming to our select committee. I look forward to hearing the submissions that we will receive from the public. This will give the select committee the opportunity to make sure the regime is set appropriately so that people who want to make New Zealand their home are not discouraged and New Zealanders can have the opportunity to comment on this bill in the select committee process, Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Andrew Bayly—five minutes.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this bill, and this is a bill that’s got a feel-good factor to it. It’s a populist bill, in my view, and a number of my colleagues have already highlighted some of the philosophical differences we have with this bill, particularly—contrary to many of the misguided participants in this House who have said it on a number of occasions, the Land Information New Zealand records show that only 3 percent of sales are to foreigners. The other aspect is that the National Government has already implemented a whole raft of changes, and we’ve heard about some of those, around the foreign buyers having to get an IRD number if they’re going to buy a house; the introduction of a two-year brightline test, which is an increasingly stringent requirement on foreign buyers; the introduction of a tax—when they buy a property and sell it, they are required to pay resident withholding tax—and, of course, we’ve implemented a number of the Shewan recommendations around foreign trusts.

What I want to focus on is some of the mechanisms proposed in this bill, because I think they highlight some of the difficulty in terms of the practicality around how this bill is actually going to work. Just to go back a second, the current Overseas Investment Office (OIO) rules relating to sensitive land have a two-stage test to them. The first one is the “investor” test, and a person must demonstrate—and I’m talking about a person being a foreigner—appropriate business experience and acumen, financial commitment, good character, and comply with certain Immigration Act requirements. The second test is the “benefit to New Zealand” test, which is a general test around creation of jobs, increasing investment, and environmental and other factors. And, of course, it applies to non-rural land greater than five hectares, and, in regard to land with anything regarding water or historical or Māori influence, 0.4 hectares.

So what this means—and under the current OIO rules—is the process is that for any foreign buyer, they must get prior approval and they must have regard to, if they look at a piece of land, what is the historical significance of that land. If it’s got anything to do with water, it will inevitably require a report on it. It will require a wai tapu report if there’s any consideration of that issue. Often, these reports cost a lot of money. It’s not unknown for many of these applications to be $100,000 and involve a lot of lawyer time, accountants’ time, etc.—very expensive, and the process for approval takes a heck of a long time.

So my issue with this is, first of all, the need for these people to get prior approval—and so how are they going to enter auctions? The second one is the cost to the foreigners that are going through that process. The third one is the cost to the OIO, and we’ve seen the reports to Treasury around what that’s going to incur, which will be significant. And the fourth thing is waiting for the Minister, in her determination, to eventually come round and actually make a determination. I think this whole thing is going to get bogged down through the lack of practicality of working through the many applications that will come through and the process relating to that.

The second issue I’ve got is around the definition of “lifestyle block”. The test is that a lifestyle block is whether it’s predominantly used for residential use. In my area where I live, South Auckland, I’m surrounded by lifestyle blocks, and the issue is “Are they economic units greater than or less than five hectares?” Of course, many can argue that growing flowers or some horticulture or even having racehorses—that makes them very, very economic, and so I think that is an area of confusion, and, of course, that creates an area for loophole for foreign buyers. So even if you wanted to stop them, I think that’s a possible area of confusion.

The third area is around the responsibility on conveyancers to certify to the best of their knowledge that the purchaser complies with the new rules. So I think in the select committee we will be inundated with real estate agents, lawyers, etc., coming to see us, absolutely against the issue of them being required to go through this process to attest that every transaction has met that test, and, of course, there are increased financial liabilities in this bill.

So I have a lot of difficulty with this. I think it’s going to be a difficult bill to implement, and I don’t think it achieves anything other than making sure that the coalition Government has a feel-good factor around it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise—the member’s time has expired. I call Jamie Strange. I understand this is a split call—five minutes.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Is it a split call or is it 10 minutes?

Kieran McAnulty: She’s the boss.

JAMIE STRANGE: Yes, OK. I am proud that this Government are putting Kiwis first. If I walked out to Lambton Quay and I stopped a hundred people on the street and I asked them “Do you want our homes kept for Kiwis?”, 99 percent of them would say yes.

David Seymour: Is that a scientific sample?

JAMIE STRANGE: Absolutely. I’ll give you the results later. Now, some people would say that those out there, outside of this House, would not understand an overseas investment bill if they tripped over it in the street, but I believe that we need to listen to New Zealanders. Look, if we look at Hamilton, we’ve got 42 percent of Hamiltonians who are renting. They would like to get into a home but they’re unable to, and that’s because of the rapid house price increase over the past few years. By bringing this bill in, included in a suite of housing policies, we will make housing more affordable for people again.

One of the key reasons I got involved in politics is because I want my children to have a good future. I want my four kids to be able to afford to buy a house one day. I want my kids to have a good public health system; an education system that’s diverse, that works for all of them. [Interruption] Look, the member Mr Bayly spoke about—actually, it was one of the members over there—looking after Kiwis—

Hon Member: Which one?

JAMIE STRANGE: The blond one—I don’t know his name. Ha, ha! The member over there talked about Kiwis living overseas, and so all of a sudden now you care about Kiwis. All of a sudden now you’re looking after Kiwis—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me, don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

JAMIE STRANGE: I apologise. I apologise. All of sudden now the members care about Kiwis where for nine years in Auckland they let house prices go absolutely crazy, where Kiwis couldn’t afford to buy houses.

My wife and I bought our first house in 2003. We had a deposit of $12,000, and back in 2003 to buy a house was within reach. In Auckland, the average house price now is $1 million—$1 million for the average house—and the previous Government let it get to that point. They sat on their hands, they let the market take over, and the Reserve Bank even had to step in and act, because the Government wouldn’t.

Well, this Government will act. We will act in housing, and this is, like I said, a part of a suite of changes. Some of the members have been talking about “3 percent”. Well, I contest that, and the reason I contest that is because I’m constantly talking to real estate agents who are telling me it’s a lot higher than that. I’m constantly talking to people who are at auctions and losing—and losing—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Real Estate New Zealand—it’s their own figures.

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! Look, people on the street know best, Mr Brownlee. If you think that you know best, then why didn’t you receive the votes of the majority of the people on the street? The people on the street know best, and we are listening to the people on the street. We’re listening to hard-working Kiwis who can’t afford to buy houses, and we will enable them to get into homes.

The goal for this policy is to ensure the housing market is shaped by New Zealand - based buyers. We will put Kiwis first. This will make homes more affordable for New Zealand buyers at some times in the property market cycle, including first-home buyers, while also supporting our efforts to build a more productive economy by helping redirect capital to productive assets. If we have a look at the German economy, they’ve had fairly flat house prices for around 30 years, because people invest in business—and primarily German businesses. We need a model similar to that, where people are incentivised to invest in business, rather than investing in housing.

The new legislation brings residential land within the category of sensitive land in the Overseas Investment Act. This change will not affect New Zealand citizens, regardless of where they live. They will continue to be able to buy houses without any screening from the Overseas Investment Office. Another key point here, as one of my colleagues mentioned before, is that if you live overseas and you do want to buy a New Zealand house, you can do that by building, so you’re adding to the stock, but you can’t buy an existing house. Just going back to what I said, from what I’m hearing, 99 percent of New Zealanders agree with this policy, and we will listen to Kiwis, helping them get into their homes. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call David Seymour—five minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I’d just like to congratulate the member who has just resumed his seat, Jamie Strange, on getting all the way through his speech. Well done. And I just want to say to some of the National members who were ganging up and heckling him: how cruel. I suspect their behaviour, like many bullies’, was an attempt to hide an insecurity, and the insecurity is this: they know that the speech before it, by Andrew Bayly—Andrew Bayly, you see, is not known to be a funny man—proved, with his speech, that a man needn’t be funny to give a funny speech, and that he did. He started off by saying that there were deep philosophical divides between the National Party and the Government on this particular issue. He then went on to give a comprehensive list of policies that the previous Government introduced of the very same nature, with exactly the same objective.

Do we remember requiring foreigners to have a bank account, to have an IRD number? Do we remember the brightline test, which Andrew Bayly said was designed to ensure it was harder for foreigners to buy homes in New Zealand?

Hon David Parker: And a good idea.

DAVID SEYMOUR: So the National Party know that this policy is ineffective, because it didn’t work for them either. But I don’t know if I can give the same forgiveness to the smiling David Parker, because he knows that this policy will not work, but he is learning about the exigencies of a coalition arrangement. David Parker is not a racist man, but some of the people he sits with are. The fact of the matter is that this policy is not going to be effective.

The reason it was found to be ineffective by the previous Government and will be found to be ineffective by this Government is very simple: you cannot tell the difference between the formal ownership and the beneficial ownership of a house in New Zealand if the owner wants to hide that beneficial ownership. Let me just give an example: someone under 30 whom I was talking to in Auckland the other day earns less than $50,000 and owns two houses in Auckland. Why? Extensive overseas contacts and sources of cash. Under this bill, that’s fine. Under any bill, that’s fine, unless you’re actually going to literally start blood testing the people that own the houses. That’s the reality. When the National Party says that only 3 percent of homes that were bought in New Zealand were bought by foreigners, we know that is absolute bulldust. The fact of the matter is that it might be formally true—it might be true on the property titles—but it’s not true when it comes to who has the beneficial ownership and who really owns the property.

So this bill will not do anything to change the real ownership of property—who really puts up the money to pay for it—but it will scratch an itch; an itch felt by some of David Parker’s coalition partner’s voters—that maybe those bad people who look different have been buying too many homes, and if we just stop that, then New Zealand will be a fairer place. He knows it won’t work—he’s said it won’t work—but he’s going to do it because of the exigencies of coalition Government. But the really sad thing for all of those New Zealanders who are finding it hard to access a home is that this Government is avoiding the real issue.

The real issue is this; it’s very, very simple. The real issue is that we built, in New Zealand, 39,000 houses in 1974, when people barely had technology such as nail guns, when the population was two-thirds of what it is today, and we haven’t broken 30,000 since. The rate of home building per capita in New Zealand has halved in the last 40 years under the Resource Management Act, under the infrastructure funding—and the member who just resumed his seat should study how they fund infrastructure in Germany. That’s the real reason it’s cheaper; it’s not this “ein Reich” stuff he was referring to. The fact of the matter is that if we don’t change our underlying land-use regulation and infrastructure funding regimes, we will not build more homes. We will not alleviate the very real shortage of housing. And we will not be a peaceful, harmonious, collegial nation here in the South Pacific when the Government of the day comes down to this House and puts on the Order Paper a bill that is designed not to make housing more affordable but to scratch that little itch. What a shame.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s been an interesting afternoon at the beginning of the debate around this piece of legislation. I was rather intrigued when the list MP for Hamilton East, Jamie Strange, stood up and talked about 99 percent of people in the street of Wellington. It would probably be a good idea to actually go and speak to the people in Hamilton. But what intrigued me more—what intrigued me more—was when he got up and said that all of the real estate agents that he talked to actually are agreeing with the statement of the 99 percent of people in the Wellington street. Well, the real estate agents have just put out some information that is similar to the information that we found that identifies that it’s somewhere around 3 percent of people.

On this piece of legislation, when is a ban not a ban? It’s not a ban when the Labour - New Zealand First - Greens Government wants to implement the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. This bill is not a ban, and we’ve already heard about the out clauses around people who want to buy into rest homes. There’s a whole range of things that have been put to us around this bill that show that it’s actually not a ban. We’ve also heard from our speakers that it’s about process, and about process that’s been badly, badly designed, because it’s been rushed through. We also heard from the Hon David Parker, when he got up and did his initial speech, that it is rushed legislation. All it’s designed to do is to put more red tape in from a red party.

This previous Government, in the National Party, introduced regular monitoring of foreign buyers throughout New Zealand, which showed that they were a very small percentage. Willow-Jean Prime, when she got up before, said we need to collect real data. Well, actually, we have started collecting real data. We’ve collected data that shows it’s 3 percent. So when Shane Jones stands up and says that it is the Government’s prerogative to make big, fundamental calls—yes, this might be a fundamental call, and we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric on the other side today about the fundamental call, but actually I wouldn’t call it a big call. If we’re talking about 3 percent, and then we take the 3 percent who actually are selling the houses off that 3 percent, it doesn’t come to a very large number at all. It’s a badly designed piece of legislation. It’s being rushed through around trying to get this piece of legislation completed before the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or the newly branded version of the TPP, comes through.

So there have been quite a lot of risks highlighted. The main risk that I see when I look at the regulatory impact statement and the stuff that’s been put forward is about the design choices. They may be suboptimal and they may have unintended consequences, which is really interesting in a bill where we’re talking about housing. If we talk about housing and we get bad design choices around housing that may be suboptimal or have unintended consequences, then we’re not going to end up with very good houses.

So if you apply this to a piece of legislation, it’s exactly the same—bad design choices, which may be suboptimal and have unintended consequences. I’m actually concerned about the people who work for our Overseas Investment Office because they’re only going to have limited time to operationalise the policy. We all know that when we have limited time to operationalise policy, things are going to fall through the cracks. So are people going to be flying blind? Is this policy going to be completely prepared? Is the operational part of this policy going to be completely prepared? Is the Government prepared for the things that are going to be falling through the cracks?

We heard also from Shane Jones before. He calls it a done deal. He says that this bill is going to go through, so he’s been telling those people that are interested in this topic that if they come along to the select committee their views are not of value. That is, I think, a bit arrogant. It’s one thing to be arrogant in terms of voting numbers in this House, but it’s another thing to give the public the view that if they come along to the select committee they won’t be heard.

I’m concerned at the limited time—and it’s been pointed out in these documents—to educate the real estate agents, all of the conveyancers, and all of the general public. Over 3 percent of people—so we’re talking about 3 percent of buyers minus 3 percent of sellers equals zero, and we’re going to this big fuss because we think it’s going to make a difference. This from a party over there who, during the course of the last three years, has voted against pieces of legislation to free up land to build houses, and then pretends that this piece of legislation is going to fix everything in the housing market, when of course it’s not.

So, to me, it’s just—other comments have come through today. The other side, the Government, says, “We fought an election on this issue.”, and “Floods of people from overseas—floods of people from overseas”. Well, right at the moment in this country we’re in the middle of a drought, and I would say that if we got 3 percent of our rainfall in the course of a year, we certainly would not call that a flood. So I’m not sure how you can actually apply—

Hon Todd McClay: Unless it all comes at once.

BARBARA KURIGER: Exactly. It’s a bit of a flawed theory. So I’m not sure how you can say that 3 percent of people buying houses in the housing market causes a flood.

Hon Todd McClay: Especially if 3 percent of them are evaporating at the same time.

BARBARA KURIGER: Absolutely. They’re disappearing at the same time, and we all know about evaporation because the heat outside is pretty hot, and the heat on the other side of this House is pretty hot.

I think the other thing that really concerns me, as a person who’s involved in the primary industry and knows that this country really, really depends on trade, is that we are rushing this through for the purposes of what the Minister says, about getting his newly branded TPP done. We know that there are exceptions for Australia. We’ve heard in the House this afternoon that there’s going to be some big conversations going on with a number of countries. Singapore is already having the discussion. How many of those free-trade agreements are going to actually cause this Government some grief going forward? That’s what happens when you rush legislation and you don’t think things through.

So, again, if we’re going to apply it to some trade agreements, and we’re not going to apply it to other trade agreements, or we can’t apply it to some other trade agreements, then it goes back to the original question that I posed when I first stood up. When is a ban not a ban? It’s turning into a great big confusing piece of legislation that’s designed to meet a little problem—a little problem that we’ve defined this afternoon, that potentially could be as small as zero. So just 3 percent minus 3 percent equals zero.

So I hope that when the select committee process takes place, there will be a time when people will have their concerns listened to, and that the public will have the opportunity to have a say on this, because this piece of legislation is about as clear as mud. It’s designed to clear up a problem that actually doesn’t really exist. It won’t be so long when people are talking about the cost of housing. They’re going to be coming back and going “Where are all these buyers anyway?” because the housing market is cooling off.

I’m also concerned really about how the Government—there’s no mention in here about how much extra funding the Government intends to give to the Overseas Investment Office. They’re talking about having limited time to put it together. So, first of all, there’s been no indication of how the Overseas Investment Office is going to be resourced. So you give people an extra job, you give them limited time to do it, and there’s no commitment to how much money that the Government is going to give them. In my time in Parliament there has been no shortage of criticism of the Overseas Investment Office from those members on the other side of the House.

So I would be concerned that this current Government is looking at setting up the Overseas Investment Office to fail on a project that is worth somewhere next to zero. So, thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, and I do commend it to the House. I think the purpose of this bill is quite clear, and there’s a very clear principle at stake here. We need to ensure that investments made by persons in New Zealand will have a genuine benefit to this country.

This bill is about addressing a very clear issue facing this country, and that of course is the shortage of houses available to those living here. It was once a realistic dream to own a home. It was once a realistic dream to buy a farm. That is no longer the case for far too many people. An important principle at work here is that New Zealand - based buyers should be able to help to shape the New Zealand housing market. The fact is that now it is not New Zealand - based buyers who are shaping this market. What is being introduced here, with this Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, is a new level of screening—screening within a structure that is already in place—to ensure that investment in this nation benefits this nation.

Residential land will be considered sensitive land for the purposes of the Overseas Investment Act—the Act that will be amended by this bill. Residential land is sensitive right now, in the common usage of the word “sensitive”. Many now consider owning their home to be a pipedream. We cannot sit back, as the previous Government has done over nine years, and let the dream of homeownership slip away for too many people. The fact is that we need to do something here, and this bill is going a long way to doing so. It is part of a wide range of packages. Nobody here is suggesting that it is the silver bullet and it will fix everything. But this Government is going to fix what is facing too many people in this country.

I’d note that the bill is not an outright ban on investment by overseas people. The change would not stop purchasers of residential land outright, because foreign investment in New Zealand, including in residential land, can bring genuine benefits to this country. Accordingly, overseas people will be allowed to purchase sensitive land that is residential land if they can demonstrate that it is of benefit to this country. This is a common-sense position to take, a focus that is of real benefit to this country.

Now, I take particular interest in this bill. I live in Masterton. Masterton was a town where you could always afford to buy a home. With the prices of houses in Masterton and the wider Wairarapa—indeed, the wider Wairarapa electorate, which encompasses the Tararua district and the Central Hawke’s Bay district as well—it was always a case where, regardless of what job you had, you had a realistic possibility of buying your own home. The towns of Wairarapa have been feeling the impact of the housing crisis for some time. The first part of that was because of the inaction of the previous Government, which led to the introduction of the loan-to-value ratio of 20 percent, which unfairly discriminated against those that lived in rural and regional New Zealand because they had to save up much higher deposits than were needed. That, at the time, was not an issue facing places like Wairarapa, yet people there were feeling the burn. I do not blame the Reserve Bank. That was a mechanism that they had to put in place because the Government simply would not act.

What was a huge problem for Auckland, Wellington, and some other larger urban centres is now also a problem for our smaller places like Dannevirke, like Waipukurau, and like Masterton. Now, some of these are good things. The fact that we have more people moving to our region is a good thing. There is no doubt about that, but it does create challenges. In Wairarapa we are very lucky. We are lucky. We are within an hour and a half’s drive from the capital city, so we benefit from the fact that we have a connection to a large urban centre and we have a regular commuter rail service. However, a lack of investment in that and other core infrastructure and a lack of support for local councils has meant that now Wairarapa is facing the strain of having an influx of people from the larger urban centres.

I congratulate the Masterton District Council for its promotional efforts in attracting those from Auckland. It identified that there was an issue there—that people in Auckland simply could not afford to buy a home, and that because we were close to Wellington, we had an advantage that other regions, such as, perhaps, Hawke’s Bay or Wanganui, may not be able to have, because they do not have that benefit, that connection, the regular connection to the capital city. But it is placing a strain. I feel for places like the Tararua district and the Central Hawke’s Bay district, which have a very low population spread across a very large area. Now, the Tararua district could benefit from its proximity to Palmerston North. The towns of Pahīatua, Woodville, and Dannevirke are starting to see people moving there because people can work in Palmerston North and travel. There is an impact there, however, because what they’re facing is an incapacity to invest in infrastructure for growth. This is a problem facing many rural areas. It is also an issue facing—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just think we’re a mile away from the bill here at this point. It’s the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. I think discussing infrastructure in Dannevirke is all very important, but maybe if we could ask the member to talk about the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think that’s very helpful. I’ll encourage the member to actually come back to the specifics of the bill.

KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. That’s not the first time the previous Government hasn’t wanted to hear about the issues in Dannevirke. The problem is that—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect to the member, that’s not a helpful intervention. He was invited to come back to the point of the bill. I’m more than happy to debate Dannevirke and other parts of this wonderful country as soon as the member puts up a bill about it, but this is not the case in this case.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member. I encourage the member to speak to the specifics of the bill.

KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, I appreciate that guidance. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—the fact is that we need to amend this for a very simple purpose, like I was about to come to, which is that those in the cities felt the strain of being unable to buy their home first. Now those in the regions are feeling that strain, and the regional councils and the local district councils are feeling the strain of the housing crisis because of the pressure that it is putting on them.

I mentioned earlier, of course, that it is not an issue just facing the cities. There is a very clear principle at stake in this bill. This bill recognises and reaffirms that is a birthright of New Zealanders to be able to afford a home and, indeed, to be able to afford productive land. If you have a right to live here, you should have a right to buy here, and this bill goes a long way to ensuring that’s the case. New Zealand and Australian citizens, and permanent residents who reside here, will be able to buy existing homes in New Zealand without going through the screening of the Overseas Investment Office.

It is my view that this is yet another example of this Government acting where the previous Government has not. The housing crisis has affected too many people. It was a key issue in the last election campaign, and it is a key issue that led to a change of Government. The objective of this Government bill is to ensure the principle that homes should never be commodities. We’re not talking about something that should be traded on the international market; we’re talking about something that people should be able to strive to buy and live in: homes—homes—which has been undermined by the previous Government, not just in terms of affordability but in many other issues as well.

This Government continues to welcome foreign investment as long as it brings benefits to New Zealand. Now, that’s a principle that’s been in place for a very long time through the Overseas Investment Office, and we’re talking about businesses and communities as well. Where it benefits New Zealand, it should be welcomed. We particularly want to encourage foreign investment where it adds to our economy. Investment in existing homes, however, by those who do not have the right to reside here and have no intention to live here does not help that objective. It also does not help the first-home buyers, the people out there that are now having to face the issue of saving up and finding themselves facing a much larger deposit than has ever been required before.

Another important note is that despite what we heard during the campaign, banning overseas buyers is indeed compatible with New Zealand’s free-trade agreements. The ban is compatible with almost all of our existing trade agreements. The past Government, I note, said that it was impossible to put this ban in place. I want to acknowledge the Associate Minister of Finance, the relevant Minister here, the Hon David Parker, who took this issue by the horns almost immediately upon election and has proven to the previous Government and to the people of New Zealand that they were wrong—that the previous Government was wrong, just to be clear. We have put in place something very quickly. I note the comments that have been made in that regard previously. We actually had no choice. This issue was neglected by the previous Government, and in order for this to be in place before the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement comes into ratification, we had to put something in place. I commend this bill to the House and congratulate the Ministers and the officials for putting the work into it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

The question was put that the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just clarify the process here. In terms of the motion in respect of the length of the select—does that come next rather than as part of this motion?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes, yes, we’re just moving this—so I will put the motion again.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move that the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 February 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member; I just have to take some advice on this. Can I just ask the member to read the amendment as required. He hasn’t read the amendment as required.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the bill be reported to the House by 20 February 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting excepting during oral questions, during every evening on a day where there is a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, 194(1)(b) and (c).

I want to explain to the House why we’re seeking this earlier report back. In doing so, I want to acknowledge that the principles of good parliamentary process generally require that there is a decent period of select committee consideration—a period that is long enough for about six weeks of public notification before submissions close. The reason for that is that you want people to be able to take advice. If they are organisations that have got a monthly meeting schedule, they can get board approval or committee approval before they make their submission. Then you give plenty of time for the committee to consider submissions, to hear departmental advice, and to make considered recommendations back to this House. Through that process, we have as close to perfect legislation as you can get. That is the normal process, and that is the process that this House should normally adopt.

There are exceptions to those normal processes. The most shortened of those is where the House takes urgency with no select committee process, and there are occasions when that is necessary. Indeed, it was actually thought, until about a month ago, that we were going to have to pass this through all stages because there was the prospect that the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) would be signed by the parties by about now. Once that agreement is signed, it is beyond the control of the New Zealand Government when it comes into effect, because the provisions of that agreement now say—and this is one of many differences between this agreement and the old agreement—that a simple majority of the countries that have signed up to it have to ratify it before it comes into effect. So if there are 11 countries that sign up to it, it takes only six of those countries to have ratified it for it to come into effect, and that is beyond the control of this Parliament.

We know, from advice that we’ve had from officials and statements that the Government has made publicly, that the changes that are proposed to New Zealand’s investment screening regime have to be in place before the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) comes into effect in order for there to be the policy space for this Government, or any future Government, to have the effective ability to change screening rules.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Rubbish!

Hon DAVID PARKER: “Rubbish”, the former Minister says from the other side. He still does not get it. He does not get it after all of this time—that what the prior Government was doing was signing away for ever the effective right for New Zealanders to change—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can’t talk about that. Narrow it up. Broaden it out if you like; we’re happy to.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m actually not attempting to broaden it, but I am making the point that this is why—I’m very happy for it to be broadened, because this is the debate that we are happy to have, to show that this is an appropriate shortening of the period of consideration, because, otherwise, New Zealand loses the ability to change these screening regimes, in effect, not just because of TPP but because of most favoured nation clauses that are common to various other trade agreements, which take into the earlier trade agreements the provision of TPP. So CPTPP is dragged into the earlier agreements. If we do not—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but the member cannot broaden the debate, and it’s a very narrow debate. I’m sorry for not pointing that out earlier, but the member cannot do that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could the Speaker perhaps indicate to us the parameters of the debate?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. I refer to Standing Order 290(3): “Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction set out in the motion. It may not extend to the principles, objects, or provisions of the bill to which the motion relates.”

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t often want to rise in support of Mr Parker, but it’s actually quite an important procedural issue that he is addressing, which is the timing of the particular agreement, which is his primary reason for bringing the bill back to the House early. Now, I think that’s something that does meet the test of being included in this debate. Members on this side will want to be able to address that in the debate, because if that’s the reason for taking the step that the Government is proposing to take, well then it will be difficult to have the debate without actually addressing whether the reason is valid or not.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I just want to answer this one. In terms of making changes, extending dates, etc., the member can raise that in their speech. The expectation is that a copy of that will come to the Clerk after the member has spoken. I’ll listen carefully and invite the member to continue, and please keep the debate on the timing of the bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m going to agree with the Opposition on this occasion. With respect, I think the purpose of this debate is to justify a shortened process. There are reasons that we normally have a more lengthy process. I’ve been involved in a number of these debates over the years in Opposition, and we have routinely sought to either criticise or justify the length of period in relation to the circumstance that justifies the change. I think that the Hon Steven Joyce is correct in that regard.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I won’t unduly prolong it, sir. I will also make it clear that the exact date on which the TPP agreement is signed is not yet clear. It is, at this stage, expected to be in March next year. If it is March next year—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This is not a point of order; I thought I was speaking in the debate again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thought you were adding to your point of order.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No—sorry, sir.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): All I’m going to say is that I’ll listen carefully to what members are saying, and then if there are issues that arise, members need to make sure that it is relevant to the motion.

Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be a point of clarification, because the Hon David Parker has been speaking as to the reason he’s speaking outside of the bill itself. I’m now unclear, based upon your ruling, whether or not the Opposition is able to speak to that. I actually agree with the Hon David Parker—today is the first time he’s said something, actually, that is correct. But I do want to challenge some of the things in his speech so far, because I don’t agree with them, nor do I think that they are reasons for us to be rushing back so soon afterwards. So if you could just clarify your ruling—it feels to me that what you’ve said is that you’re going to take it on a case by case basis. It would be remiss of me not to raise this in case, on a case by case basis, you don’t allow us to respond to the reasons David Parker has given that we are going to make people work so hard through the Christmas break.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the members of the House. I haven’t actually made a ruling; I’m just making a point of clarification. The timing of the TPP is relevant to the timing in so far as it’s relevant to the timing of the bill—then, yes, you can speak to it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. At this stage, it may be signed in February or March. This is a matter that is, again, beyond the control of the Government, because it depends a bit on when other countries are ready to sign. We’re ready to sign now. If it turns out to be March, then it may be that towards the end of this February period we can extend the time of the select committee through the Business Committee if the interests of New Zealand are not undermined in terms of the legislation being passed before TPP comes into effect. It is also possible that because of this TPP deadline that there is a Supplementary Order Paper that may also—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What deadline? You just said there’s no deadline.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I said the deadline is when it comes into effect, Mr Brownlee. I think I’ve explained this.

If that is necessary, we will endeavour to make the Supplementary Order Paper available to the select committee as soon as we are able, but, again, that is subject to this deadline that arises from TPP coming into effect.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Does anyone else see the irony in the current Government saying that they have to rush this through because they don’t want to get caught out in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—whatever it is now—but also criticising the previous Government for saying that the provisions that they are seeking to work around here—they’ve not changed, I might point out—could not be achieved.

I think we’ve got to get back to the point here: that the select committee is going to be asked to do a lot of work in a very short period of time. I would refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 102/7. This is a ruling that came out of the Review of Standing Orders: Report of the Standing Orders Committee, September 2011, so it’s quite current. At that time, indeed, the Minister now moving this particular shortened, or truncated, select committee process would have been active on that committee. It says: “Select committees should have six months or more to consider most bills. There is no intention for the default period for select committee consideration of bills to be shortened, and the Government should exercise due restraint when considering the truncation of the select committee process.” So just think about that “due restraint”. Is that being exercised in this case?

A couple of weeks ago, when Mr Parker went to Argentina to participate in the discussions in Buenos Aires, there was an expectation, or a hope, that the CPTPP might get signed up a little bit sooner than it appears to be now. But that meeting did not meet all of the hopes and aspirations of others, and it would seem that we are in for a long and protracted process before the 11 come to agreement on this comprehensive partnership.

That’s what I think causes us to think about whether or not it’s appropriate that we take out, firstly, even just the legal holiday—I should say for the legal fraternity—that occurs in New Zealand over the next short while. We know that, from about Thursday of this week through to around 20 January, a lot of those professionals are not available to advise people who might want to make a submission on this bill. And then, to expect that within a short four-week period, the requirements that are set out for a select committee in the Standing Orders in this Parliament can be met—I think it’s worth reflecting that each select committee to which a bill is referred examines the bill and determines whether to recommend that the bill be passed.

Now, this afternoon in the House, we have heard Government members saying, “It doesn’t matter. We’ve got the numbers. It’s happening.” Well, we’ve also heard the Minister say that the Government did consider putting this through under urgency but now the need for that urgency has dissipated. I would think that defaults us to a position where we go back to the Standing Orders and do things in an appropriate fashion.

It also, of course, says that a report of the select committee on a bill indicates the committee’s determination on all matters set out in the Standing Orders. So, if you go then to Standing Order 293, it goes to the issue of opinions from other select committees. This is not a bill that stands on its own and has no effect on other activities inside New Zealand. Firstly, it might be inappropriate in this debate to state that it is certainly a sledgehammer attempting to crack a nut—and all of the stats show that, since the changes that were made about 12 months ago by the previous Government—but let’s just consider for a minute the education workforce.

We have, at the moment, our Government agencies out around the world, particularly in English-speaking countries, trying to recruit teachers to come to New Zealand. They will come to New Zealand on various types of visa, and while the bill says that if the visa is appropriate, then they might be able to buy a house here, there is no discussion in the bill as it currently stands about the parameters of those visas. So I think it would be quite appropriate for the select committee to consider that and to ask the opinion of the Education and Workforce Committee about what they think might work, not only just for education but—take that word “workforce”—the entire workforce of New Zealand, particularly in the higher skilled areas where we are benefiting from people who choose to make a life here.

Now, the Opposition will immediately say, “But, oh, we’ve covered that off in the bill, so the committee doesn’t need to take it any further.” I think that is wrong. I think that is the sort of arrogance that often leads to mistakes.

Then, I think, if this is going to be a bill that changes the parameters for foreigners being able to buy land here and allows, for example, the investment in rest homes or in retirement villages or in any other number of social service facilities that might be required around the country, then surely the Social Services and Community Committee should have a view on that. I find it amazing that we can be considering a bill, which the House will deal with shortly—brought into this House by the Hon Ruth Dyson—dealing with some of the concerns around the way those villages operate, but it is also a bill that then enables foreigners to come and, pretty much without any restraint, invest in those particular facilities.

Why wouldn’t we have the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee look into this? We know that foreign investment is welcomed in this country—Mr Parker has said it over and over. I think there should be a consideration of what restraint this bill might put on that—not unreasonable.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The motion as to which committee this goes to has already been considered and voted upon. This debate is about the term of the referral.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking to the point of order, I refer the Assistant Speaker to Standing Order 293, which says that “The select committee to which a bill is referred may ask any other [select] committee for its opinion on the bill or … part, [or] clause, [or] schedule, or other provision of the bill.” I’m making a case, in my speech this afternoon, that they should be able to do exactly that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, and I agree with the member. That’s absolutely correct.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you, sir. So then there is the question about whether the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee should be asked for its opinion on this. I think that that is very much an absolute. We have significant arrangements in this country in defence ties with Singapore, as we do with Australia. Singapore, as we know, are rightly aggrieved that they are apparently not, in this bill, to be treated as the Australians are. Yet they are very, very close to us in so many ways, and further, they’re looking, of course, to invest in the central North Island, and that, of course, regardless of what Mr Peters said to the House last week, will involve some kind of property investment. There is no provision for that sort of activity in this particular bill, and I think a simple reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee would be a good idea.

The Speakers’ rulings, of course, are a very good guide to the House, and I just want to talk to one that is relatively recent. Speaker’s ruling 105/1 says that “[There are] implications for the quality of legislation of allowing insufficient time for the drafting of amendments and commentaries. We urge select committees examining bills to programme sufficient time for the drafting and consideration of amendments, and for the subsequent drafting and consideration of commentaries.” Now, that seems to me a reasonable direction from the Speaker from 2011, but where does a select committee go if a Minister manages to persuade the House—and only by using the whip to get the full range of votes—that the select committee process should be truncated?

The Hon David Parker, this afternoon, also said, “Well, if it looks like the TP—CPTPA is going to be extended a little bit further before we get a signatory”—

Hon David Parker: T-P-P-A.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Look, I don’t know how many Ps are in it, and I’m not sure how many Ts are in it. It is a wonderful trade deal, which I do hope is signed off as soon as possible, but it’s not on the horizon at the moment. The Hon David Parker said, “Well, we could go to the Business Committee and ask for an extension of time.” Why not do it the other way round? Let the select committee go to a reasonable period of time, and then ask the Business Committee either to truncate it, or—knowing that all the members on the committee will want, in majority, for that deal to be signed—for them to do the work a little bit more quickly, on a more collegial and voluntary basis?

So I want to move an amendment to the Hon David Parker’s motion. I accept all of the aspects of his motion that talk about the time, etc., by which committees can sit, but I move, That “20 February” be replaced by “19 April 2018”.

That way, there will be plenty of time for a good bill to come out of this. It’s pretty untidy at the moment.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on this because I actually am quite concerned about the amount of time that has been allocated for this bill at committee, according to the motion from the Government. If you start with Mr Parker’s own speech when he was reading the first speech on the bill in the first reading, he talked about how this bill had to be rushed and put together quickly, and, for that reason alone, I think it is worth having significant time at the committee.

I appreciate Mr Parker’s concerns about the “alphabet-soup” TPP that we’re now in, but it’s sort of a little ironic given that he’s spent much of the last couple of years talking about New Zealand sovereignty and how important it is for New Zealand to do the things that are important for it, and suddenly we get a piece of legislation that does change things for New Zealanders in quite a comprehensive way. It needs to be assessed properly, and we are having to kowtow to the international agenda, such as it is, rather than actually taking the time to investigate this bill properly ourselves as a country and as a Parliament. So I would have thought, for sovereignty reasons alone, we should start by having a decent look at this particular bill.

Of course, we have no way of knowing, at this point, whether the alphabet-soup TPP will actually be signed, and, in fact, the signs are not particularly portentous given what didn’t happen in Argentina last week. Not only did the Ministers of the TPP—I’ll use the shortened version, if I may—not meet to actually decide whether they could sign up, they didn’t even meet to discuss whether they could sign up to the agreement. They were all there, apparently. It’s obviously busy at this time of year in Buenos Aires—you know, there’s lots to do. It’s a pretty city, I’m told; I haven’t been there myself. But, for all of that, they had no time to sit down and say, “Well, where are we up to? Let’s take stock on this. Let’s see where the Canadians are, let’s see where the Vietnamese are, let’s get this thing cranking.” No, there was no time for such matters and—[Interruption] They didn’t what?

Hon Todd McClay: Canada probably didn’t turn up to the meeting.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, they wouldn’t have turned up to the meeting. But that’s possibly why one was never scheduled, and there would’ve been the risk of Canada not turning up to the meeting. So the urgency, from that perspective, is not apparent. So I come back to the importance of getting this bill right, as the pre-eminent responsibility of this Parliament, and there are lots of red flags—or, at least, amber flags—that this bill is not right.

First, we had the Minister in charge of the bill saying it was rushed and had to be put together quickly. I note that when this so-called solution was announced, there was no paperwork at all. It was on 31 October—less than two months ago. There was no paperwork at all that was released. It was, literally, an announcement at a post-Cabinet press conference with very little detail at all, and now we have a bill that, it has to be said, has a number of red flags on it from Treasury, which is in charge of putting together the regulatory impact statement on the bill.

That’s important, because the whole idea of these regulatory impact statements is that Parliament and, indeed, the public get the officials’ view—not the Government’s view; the officials’ view—of how things are coming together and the sort of work that’s been done to bring the solution, in the form of the bill, towards the House. Again, the flags here are quite large and waving. The first flag is right on the front page, and it says that this particular version of the regulatory impact statement “was prepared for consideration by Cabinet on 11 December … further policy changes were made subsequent to this meeting.” So we’re not even a week past, and there were still further policy changes being made up till just a couple of days ago, obviously. So we have a bill that is, literally, being rushed into the House before it lifts for Christmas.

It notes, in this cover note, that “The Treasury has not had an opportunity to assess the impacts of these changes.” So the agency in charge of the regulatory impact statement hasn’t had the opportunity to consider the bill before it comes to the House for the first reading. That seems very strange, indeed. Then you get into some of the design choices that they worry about. I’m not going to discuss the contents of the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker, but just simply some of the points Treasury makes as it raises its various flags. It says, “some of the design choices may be sub-optimal or have unintended consequences;”. It doesn’t get much more black and white than that. Then it says, “the Overseas Investment Office will [in turn] have limited time to operationalize the policy; and limited time to educate real estate agents, conveyancers and the general public.”

So we have there three separate flags, and I, as a member of the select committee, would like to have the opportunity to explore fully what design choices could have been done instead that might be better. I would like to hear from the Overseas Investment Office as to how they might operationalise this policy. I would like to hear from some real estate agencies, some conveyancers, and from the general public as to how they might respond to this particular piece of legislation. The problem with that is that if you look at the potential time for the select committee to examine this bill, it is very limited, indeed. If the Parliament agrees with this 20 February—or whatever the date is; 20 February?—

Hon Members: Yes.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —20 February report back, then, realistically, the committee has to be considering the submissions by the time of late January, which means that submissions have to be called for tomorrow, if this bill gets—it has been passed through. The committee will have to call for submissions tomorrow, and the submissions will have to be received by early in January.

This is an important piece of legislation. The Government says that this is a piece of legislation that is important. There will be others who think it’s more like virtue signalling, but the Government says it’s an important piece of legislation, so you would think it would warrant asking the public at a reasonable time of year and, acknowledging the time of year, that the public would have, perhaps, a little more time to make their submissions. I’m not just talking about the public; I’m talking about the real estate agencies and the conveyancers, and, indeed, the lawyers. I don’t have the same concerns about the lawyers as my colleagues do, because I’m sure they’ll be able to charge extra hourly rates to be on deck.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. The lazy buggers; they’re always out at their relations.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They’ll all be out already, you think? They won’t even get the memo. But these things are important, and it is important for the public. I know it’s often talked about—a decline in homeownership—but, actually, when you add the number of people that own their own homes, and trusts that own homes, it’s nearly 70 percent of the population. We can debate whether that’s enough or not, but that’s a lot of people who are impacted, potentially, by this bill once they look to sell the property. I would like, as a committee member, to actually explore a little bit more in detail why it is that we are bringing this bill to the committee in the first place. Some of the rationale for the bill needs to be properly examined by the committee, because, unfortunately, again, Treasury says the only reason that it’s here, pretty much, is because it seeks to implement the Government’s 100-day commitment.

In the section of the regulatory impact statement where it says, “What problem or opportunity does this proposal seek to address? Why is Government intervention required?”, effectively, it says that Government intervention is required because the Government wants to intervene. Actually, the committee could perhaps do the Government’s job a little bit, given a little bit of time, and assess what is the need for this particular piece of legislation, because there is none in the documentation that’s been provided to the committee. I know that across this House there are different views as to the need for this particular piece of legislation or not. That’s something the committee should address, and have the time to address, if this Parliament takes itself seriously. I think that it’s important that this Parliament does.

So I would call upon the Minister who is leading this bill, David Parker, to think very carefully, because there is, as Mr Brownlee says, alternatives to setting such a short date. There are alternatives for doing that, and those alternatives include setting a longer date and then using the Business Committee to bring it back should there be some urgency. I have to say I’d love that urgency to appear, Mr Parker, but you and I both know—and I’m not bringing the Speaker into this; Mr Parker and I both know—the likelihood of that urgency occurring is, sadly, not great if the Ministers involved can’t even meet in Argentina to even discuss the trade deal that creates such urgency. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There are times when a shortened report back is not only necessary but appropriate. From time to time, also, this House will need to take urgency. I don’t think last week’s bill is a very good example of urgency, but after this bill, we will be considering the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill and that, I think, was a good example of where an appropriately consulted, bipartisan approach was taken to a very speedy report-back date and the members—the Hon Maggie Barry, Hon Nicky Wagner, Matt Doocey—were all part of the process—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We had a Minister who knew what she was doing.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, there you go. I mean, I suppose, unlike the Minister in charge of this bill, David Parker, she probably did talk to the people that were, on this side, very invested in that. So there’s no doubt that there are times when it is appropriate. Not only is this not one of those times; this is probably the worst use of a shortened report-back period since this process began. I can’t think of a less worthy bill for a shortened report back, and I’ll explain why. Today is 19 December, and up and down the country there are firms and businesses and companies and construction organisations winding up and probably winding down. I have no doubt that Mr Parker’s former law firm is doing just that, particularly in the Queenstown office, where this bill is going to be so important to them.

Now, far be it from me as an accountant to defend the lawyers amongst us—and I’ll probably send them an invoice for the two six-minute stanzas, or part thereof, that I will speak in their defence—but I actually think it is appropriate that hard-working professionals, be they lawyers or be they conveyancers, real estate agents, chartered accountants, immigration advisers, and the lobby groups that represent them: organisations like the law societies, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand, the Property Investors Federation. Who knows how many people, how many organisations and individuals, would be particularly interested in making a submission on this bill, who are currently packing the factor 50, the cossies, the water boards, and the jet skis, and they’re thinking about where they should be going—paradise, of course: Cromwell, Queenstown, Wanaka, Lake Hayes, or maybe the Coromandel. Mr Parker drops on them a bill that is so important, so badly written—and I’ll get to that in a minute—on 19 December and says, “We’re gonna have a comprehensive report back by 20 February.”

So I’m doing a little bit of the math. The minimum time—the minimum time—for submissions to close, I think, would be Friday, 12 January. Now, that would be the absolute minimum. It’s about 2½ weeks away. It is an unacceptably short time frame to be able to give this bill due consideration and make thoughtful submissions at the very best of times, but those organisations are ready to shut up shop and do what I expect David Parker wants to do, and that’s go and have a break. Now, I don’t begrudge Mr Parker’s break. He’s obviously worked very hard. He probably deserves it, but so too do the people who should be submitting on this bill and telling the Government exactly what they think of it.

I’d describe that time frame in the context of the very best legislation that could be written. Bear in mind that the select committee also has a responsibility in this as well. I’d draw the House’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 104/2, from the report of the Standing Orders Committee of 2014 about legislative quality. It talks about “Parliament [being] the supreme law-making body in New Zealand, but … operates within a larger constitutional framework. Our democracy requires respect for the rule of law and avoiding the arbitrary deprivation of rights and freedoms.”—I would suggest including the right to make a thoughtful submission on bills—“Care should be taken to ensure that [the] proposed legislation passed by the House is appropriate … We encourage select committees to examine legislative quality issues, with a particular focus on matters of constitutional and administrative law, when preparing their reports on [those] bills.”

Well, there is simply no opportunity whatsoever to do that with this bill, and that would be if it was a good bill. Now, normally, when it’s a bad bill, the regulatory impact statement (RIS) has particular code in it where the officials are really telling the House that they don’t much like it but they don’t like to do that to offend the Minister. Well, to be honest, Treasury didn’t bother this time round. They said it like it is. They said, on page 5, “This has meant that there has not been any opportunity”—no opportunity—“to consult with private sector organizations or the general public to inform the development of this policy.” No consultation. No exposure draft. No “What do you think about this?” They just landed the bill on the House and said, “Guess what? Your Christmas is cancelled.” Their Christmas is cancelled—zero opportunity to consult with the private sector. As such, in the range of options measured, the RIS always looks to what else we could do to give effect to the policy intent. Remember, the Minister thinks it’s a ban; we know it’s not a ban, but, as such, because “[The] analysis has been constrained by the Government’s commitment to implement[ing] this specific policy.”—nothing else—“… no other housing policy measures (for example policies that would support the broader objective of increasing the supply of residential property) … have been analysed or evaluated.”

So not only do we have a bad bill at a bad time of the year for the people who are most affected by this; the Minister says, “Holiday’s off.” And I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee is absolutely right when he says, “Let’s amend this. Let’s have a shortened report-back date, but let’s be sensible about the time of the year and the opportunity for those organisations to make thoughtful considerations.” I don’t agree that the scurrilous attitude that was portrayed by the Hon Shane Jones in his first reading speech is actually reflective, certainly of the Minister responsible for this bill, who basically admitted, “Get over it—that’s politics.” He said, “We’ve got the numbers. If the public don’t like it, they get a chance to do something about it in 2020.” Word for word, that’s what he said. Well, I would remind that member that the first poll after the election saw a 30 percent plummet in New Zealand First’s support, and most of it went to the National Party.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member needs to come back to the motion.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The point I’m making, Mr Assistant Speaker, is that Mr Jones and his Cabinet colleagues treat the public with that level of disrespect at their peril.

This is a terrible process. It’s a terrible bill, but that is the Government’s right. They have every right to introduce bad legislation, but so too do the public have a right to say what they think about that. In order to be able to do that, they need time to understand it, to gather their thoughts about it, to make thoughtful submissions on it, and then to appear before the select committee in support of that submission. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if the imperative to get the legislation passed was as the Minister said. But, as the former Minister of Trade had said, the CPTPP—

Hon Todd McClay: Just call it “TPP”; it’s the same.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: TPP—it is easier. The alphabet soup has been signed, will be ratified, but won’t come into force for anything up to two years. A two-year window we have to get this right, and the Minister is saying that’s not enough: we’ve got to get it in, we’ve got to get it in the House six days before Christmas. We get submissions—who knows when—12 days into the new year, and we rush, as Mr Jones has admitted, a superficial—just give the appearance of consultation and listening, and then get the bill through. Well, this is not the way good law is made. Frankly, where the Green Party is on this I have absolutely no idea. I would very much like someone in the Green Party to take a call and say how those righteous, indignant speeches that we got on any shortened report back have suddenly gone quiet, quiet as mice, on the one thing that I thought they would challenge, which was an openness to people from overseas, because they do that with refugees. They do that with other migrants, but apparently “Johnny Foreigner”, when he wants to buy a bungalow in Parnell—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member’s time has expired.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I won’t accept the closure motion at this time, thank you. This is a narrow—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There’s no such procedure in this. It’s not a committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There is. I understand it to be that in fact a closure motion can be moved. It’s also correct that if the Minister wants to respond to the amendment that has been made, he can do that as well. I am going to take the next speaker. But this is a narrow debate, as we have said. There is no scope for talking about other political parties and their poll results.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. It is concerning to come before the House, so soon before every member goes off for a holiday, to, effectively, rush through a piece of legislation that’s been rushed in its drafting, for reasons that we now hear, from the Minister responsible, the Associate Minister of Finance, are actually no longer valid. That’s, of course, because when the Government first announced that they were bringing this legislation before Parliament within the first 100 days, they said they needed to do so because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). Since then, some very minor changes were made—with the exception of quite a significant change to the name of that agreement, but for simplicity let’s just call it the TPP agreement. We’ve just heard from the Minister responsible, who’s introduced this bill, that actually, he believes it’s important, I suppose, based upon the advice that he’s had but not shared with the House in the debate earlier, nor with the public, nor with members of the committee, nor with anybody that would want to submit on this bill. He hasn’t shared the advice as to why there is such a rush to get it through.

We’ve now heard from him that, actually, it’s only before the TPP agreement enters into force that it is an issue for the Government and for the legislation. I would love to hear from him in response to why he will or will not support the amendment proposed by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, about why he believes we need to rush when there is no date for the signing of the TPP agreement, there is no date for Ministers to come back together to work through the issues of that agreement, and there is no real clear indication that the day afterwards, actually, six of the remaining 11 TPP countries will ratify it and it will enter into force. The original agreement, when signed in New Zealand almost two years ago, was ratified by only two countries, one before the US pulled out, one just after the US pulled out. After two years, there were only two countries that had ratified, and the deadline in the original agreement was that it had to enter into force within two years.

Now, if there was a proposed provision in the amended TPP agreement, which, largely, is the same as the one signed in Auckland, then I suppose the case could be made. We at least would be able to say to the public, to all those who want to submit but may well not be able to because of the very tight time frame and the holiday festive period—for members of the public more than members of this House—if there was a date that they had proposed or they had released when they last met a month and a half ago, then we would perhaps be able to consider this and take it more seriously. But there isn’t. There isn’t a time line for signature. There isn’t a suggestion that there will be a drop-dead date. In fact, the Minister has said six out of 11 countries need to ratify it.

I predict two things. The first is that I don’t think the TPP is going to be signed, because I think Canada has decided they don’t want to do it. So we’re rushing for something that won’t happen. But this is important because the sole reason that the Minister responsible has given is that we need to rush because of some legislation. So the likelihood of it happening or not is important when it comes to the House deciding whether or not we should vote to allow an extremely short period of time for consideration. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that even if it was signed, it could be a year or more. So what the Minister is doing is coming to this House and asking us to cut short the democratic right of members of the public to submit—large and small, up and down the country—the right to put in a one-word submission to the committee or a well-thought-out, detailed submission to the committee and ask to come before it.

What I want to speak to is: how many days, actually, if it is 20 February, is it reasonable for us to consider can be worked through? Well, if the committee this evening or tomorrow calls for submissions—if this evening or tomorrow they call for submissions—there are just five working days left in December. Whilst the Minister responsible could well be sunning his speedo-clad frame on a Pacific Island beach, Kiwis are expected to work between Christmas and the New Year. Now, let’s say that 20 January is the date when submissions will close, allowing just one very short month for the committee to hear from all of those submitters. I expect there will be a lot because there’s not that much detail here. But 20 January would mean that there are just 13 working days in January for people to submit, whilst the Minister, Mr Parker, could well be convalescing on the alpine slopes of Switzerland whilst he’s at Davos, talking up the importance of trade and open trade liberalisation. That would leave a very short period of time for the committee to consider this detail in total.

If we accept Mr Brownlee’s proposal, by putting it out to 20 April—

Hon Members: 19th.

Hon TODD McCLAY: —19 April—from the point that’s currently proposed to when Mr Brownlee is proposing would actually be more working days available to the public and the committee. So 41 days until submissions close and the committee has to report back is a very, very short period of time.

And, indeed, this is an important piece of legislation. Other members have spoken about those that will play a professional role in providing submissions to the committee, and many of them will be hearing for the very first time not that this bill has been coming to the House—that was well signalled—but that there is a truncated process. And when they wonder why they’re actually either going to miss the deadline or going to have to decide to cut short their breaks with their families, come back to work, and try to get the information that they need to pull those meetings of stakeholders together to put together a well-thought-out submission to the committee and ask to be heard on it—the challenge that they will have is they won’t have been given a solid reason for it, other than the Minister deciding he wants to put it through.

So the real questions for this House in debating or deciding whether or not to support this motion on behalf of the Minister are: is there good reason for this to happen; is it reasonable; and is there urgency? Is it reasonable for us to say to the public that, actually, with something so significant to them—when the officials themselves in Treasury have said they really don’t know what’s going on and we’ll have to take some more time—when they come before the committee, they too are going to feel that the time frame put upon them to give the advice that they need, that the committee will demand, is also cut short. And all that members of the public will hear is that the Minister is pushing it through and maybe, if, in the end, the reason he’s here—TPP—is not going to be signed, he could ask the Business Committee for some more time. Well, that’s not going to work for the public, who now have been told, you know, this is of such urgency that they must rush it through in the way that is being proposed.

We have seen on many occasions, if one reads Hansard—and Government members, when they’re in Opposition, would say it time and again, and whilst I wouldn’t always agree with them, in this case absolutely I would—rushed legislation is not good legislation. It means you always have to come back and fix unintended consequences. Now, I don’t want to go into those unintended consequences here; that is something that the committee would do, but it’s only possible for the committee to do it when the officials can give them correct advice, No. 1, and, No. 2, when they get to submit questions to the committee, often after receiving submissions and considering them, and I think there will be thousands of submissions on both sides of this debate to the committee. After they’ve heard from submitters, they get to raise these points. So I’m not sure that the committee will be able to do its job as well as this House needs it to as a result of the short time frame, and the Minister honestly has not given a genuine reason why there is such a rush.

At least, the reasons he’s given he’s now said actually probably are not the case. If he was to go back to the Business Committee early next year and ask for more time, it would be too late for the submitters who have already worked hard and put in their submissions. I really ask: if there is no date for the TPP to be signed—there is absolutely no clarity at all about when, if ever, it could enter into force—what is the rush now, just before Christmas?

The final point I want to make here is that, actually, probably, what’s very important for members, before they vote on this motion and, more importantly, vote on the amendment that Gerry Brownlee has made, is what could well be going on really. If there is no rationale because of that deadline for TPP, what’s really going on? Well, I’ve been hearing there has been a not straightforward process when it comes to the Government getting the legislation together. I would hazard a guess there’s a lot of disagreement around that Cabinet table. The committees would be all over the place. I would imagine not a single Government department has said it’s a great idea, and if that is the case, then, actually, more time is needed, not less time is needed, to make sure that any unintended consequence is moved out of the way. This shouldn’t be rammed through just because of dodgy coalition politics.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. What we’re hearing from the Opposition is a whole lot of excuses as to why they don’t want to protect the sovereignty of New Zealanders by ensuring that this bill goes through and that we make the most of the opportunity we have before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) comes into effect. That is the reason—as the Minister explained at the start—why there needs to be a truncated select committee process, because otherwise we lose that right. Now, I would think that most New Zealanders would want to ensure that overseas speculators can’t continue to do as they’ve done under the former National Government. They would want to—

Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said earlier that it was a very narrow debate, and I accept that, on the edges of that, when people are giving reasons why the time frame needs to be shortened, it’s important. But the bill doesn’t actually mention speculators and, therefore, the member is going way outside justification of why a short time frame is needed. Indeed, actually, two extra months would not change anything that she has said so far, and she needs to come back to the point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for his intervention, 45 seconds into the honourable member’s speech. There has been—it’s not the only contribution that has gone outside of the motion, and I’ll go back to the Hon Eugenie Sage and ask her to come to the motion.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So there is a good, solid reason why this bill must go through a truncated select committee process. That reason has been clearly explained. We will shortly be dealing with a bill on the Christ Church Cathedral reinstatement. That also has gone through a short select committee process, but there have been some significant changes made to the bill as a result of submissions.

Last year, when we considered the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquake sequence, the legislation around that also went through a truncated process, and that resulted in changes too. I am confident that because of the significant national interests at play here in this bill and the fact that New Zealand is constrained by the CPTPPA, that is a good reason to go through a truncated process. Ordinarily, of course, a six-month period would apply. That would allow much more time for people to make submissions, but if people are encouraged to recognise the significance of this bill, then I think New Zealanders, generally, would understand the need for a shortened process.

It is going to select committee. There is an opportunity to make submissions, and I think the Opposition is just trying to drum up a whole lot of arguments as to why they actually oppose the bill.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I’m very pleased to be able to talk to this motion. I want to raise a couple of points. The first is: for those members or those people that are sitting in their homes right now, it’s really important for them to understand what it takes to actually get legislation back through the House. So it’s not only the fact that Parliament has to open the submissions process; the submissions then have to be prepared by members of the public. They then have to come back to the committee. We’ve then got to see a departmental report. Then you’ve got to see a committee report, and then it’s got to come back to the House. For members opposite to say that that is reasonable by 20 February, on a piece of legislation that involves real estate agents, conveyancers, lawyers—massive implications in terms of land law—is totally outrageous.

I was very pleased to hear the Green Party make it down to the House, and I do want to acknowledge Eugenie Sage; you know, it’s important that you came down. But, coming back to the point of issue, it does matter that that is a party that we have been lectured by for many years about the need for good process in terms of select committees, and to have them come down and argue, a day before the Parliament rises, that it is reasonable to have a select committee process ending on 20 February, is outrageous.

If we actually look at the fact that there are statutory holidays, what this bill should actually be called is the “Cutting of Holidays Bill for Real Estate Agents, Conveyancers, and Lawyers”—the people who care deeply about these issues. The reality is they will have a mere couple of weeks to get submissions in, back to committee, on very complex issues. Look, we’re not the only ones that are saying this. In fact, I understand, in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), actually, these issues were raised, and I think one of the greatest issues that was raised in the RIS was that if this legislation is rushed, there are serious risks as a result of that. So we’re not the only ones in the Opposition raising that.

As my colleague the Hon Todd McClay raised, we then get to the substantive issue: is there a strong argument by the Government to actually be pushing this through on unreasonable deadlines? And, as we’ve already mentioned—I’m not going to try and say the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA)—the Government members have claimed that this is the actual reason why we are here debating an unreasonable deadline for this legislation. And, as my honoured colleague the Hon Todd McClay mentioned, there’s no date to sign, there’s no date for the parties to actually meet to discuss some of the issues, so it is absolutely, again, unreasonable to be arguing that the sole reason we are here with this legislation, with this unreasonable deadline, is because of this issue. The reality is, as many of my learned colleagues have already mentioned—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Look, as I was saying before the dinner break, this is outrageous in terms of process. We have a situation here where this bill is being rammed through by 20 February. Now, if we actually look at the time taken to consider this bill and you take into account all of the statutory holidays—from Boxing Day to Christmas Day, to New Year’s Day, to the day after New Year’s Day, potentially Auckland Anniversary Day, to Waitangi Day—we actually have a situation here where, with one day left of Parliament, we’re likely to have submissions called for and, effectively, a couple of weeks, really, of time for people to be able to get back their submissions. We’re going to have a departmental report, a committee report, consideration by committee—so several weeks is what this Government thinks is urgent, to be able to push and ram through this bill.

As we’ve already heard from many of my colleagues, the reason given by the Hon David Parker, who, I should add, made many comments when he was previously in Opposition about points of process and the importance of having a decent select committee process, is the CPTPPA. And, as we heard from the Hon Todd McClay, the reality is this is a sham reason being put forward, and we submit, on this side of the House, that there are very clear reasons why it is a sham. The first reason is there’s no actual date to sign the agreement. The second reason is there are actually issues with the agreement and there’s not even a date for those parties to meet and resolve the issues.

And then the third reason, which we put on this side of the House—and the Hon Todd McClay has already touched on it—is that even if the Hon David Parker was some kind of international powerhouse and managed to power through all of these issues in January, even if it was signed, the reality is often with these types of agreements it takes months, sometimes years, for countries to ratify. So the real reason that we have a situation where many New Zealanders, from real estate agents to lawyers, to people who have an interest in land, are being required to come back in January, cut their holiday short, not be at the beach, but actually be preparing submissions on this bill is because the other side can’t hold it together.

We’ve already seen the waka-jumping legislation. What this bill is about—and many other things we’re seeing from this side of the House—is that the other side can’t hold the Government together, so they need to push things through really quickly and really fast. It’s sort of the waka speed legislation. That’s what we’re dealing with here. They’ve got to create rules around waka jumping to stop people from jumping out of the waka, and now they’ve got to push some stuff through, coming back to this motion and this amendment, which is: “Why is this bill being rammed through quickly?” They’ve got to push it through because they’ve got the Green Party pulling on one side and then New Zealand First pulling on the other side. It’s very clear it’s a sham in terms of CPTPPA. We know that, and we know that there’s no date for it to be signed. We know that there are issues with the agreement, and we know that there’s not even a date to sign that agreement.

So the Government believe that it’s OK to leave a couple of weeks in January, and we on this side of the House want to remind the members opposite of some of the lectures that they have previously given. I want to do a shout-out to the Parliamentary Library—a happy Christmas to the Parliamentary Library. Thank you for your incredible work in the last 40 minutes to bring to the House some previous statements by members around issues of process. I want to read this statement in terms of issues of process made by an honourable member, “This is an appalling piece of legislation … grandiose in intent, and flawed in its detail, and it really should go in the trash can.” That was a statement made by the Hon David Parker on issues of process. So what we know is that they are lions in Opposition but little mice in Government.

I can say to the member that there are a range of other statements that I have pulled up, with the help of the wonderful team at the Parliamentary Library—I just want to do another shout-out to the Parliamentary Library. Whether it’s on the marine coastal bill, whether it’s on passport laws under urgency, again you’ve got the Hon David Parker previously being a bastion of process, and we are here talking about whether it’s reasonable to enable this legislation to have to come back to the House by 20 February. On this side of the House, we’re saying there isn’t a decent reason. The reality is this is about political convenience and the fact that the Government has to hold it together, and if they do have time, then it might be that New Zealand First or the Green Party end up pulling from one thread of the Government and things fall apart.

And the reality is that during this period what we know is that there are many statutory holidays. The other point that I would make is that what the member has done in terms of bringing this bill to the House—and it’s happening today—means, effectively, there’s 24 hours likely for the select committee to have to convene, to have to determine the dates around the submissions, to have to say to New Zealanders, “You’ve, effectively, got only a few weeks in January.” So, assuming that we get through this debate, I’m assuming that the chair of the committee is going to have to go back to their office, call this meeting, a meeting will have to happen tomorrow—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I know that members opposite are laughing, but, actually, this is really serious. It’s not just about members of Parliament; it’s about the real estate agents, the conveyancers, the lawyers in New Zealand, the people that are impacted by this, and we haven’t been given a decent reason. We’ve been given a sham reason, and members on this side of the House contend that it is also totally at odds with lectures that we’ve had from members like the Hon David Parker, who have opposed measures like this in the past.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, it’s a pleasure to be talking on this amendment that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has proposed, which is to extend the report date from 20 February to 19 April, to reflect reality, I think. I think the first thing I’d like to talk about, before I talk about a number of specific issues relating to this, is that, first of all, I want to acknowledge the Hon Eugenie Sage from the Greens for actually having the courage to stand up and put forward the Green view—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You can’t talk about members having courage, or lack of courage.

ANDREW BAYLY: —for talking about the bill—yes. I’ve got to say that I just wanted to compliment her for taking that step, because I think it’s important that the Greens are on record. But from what I recall from the conversation just before the tea break, the Hon Eugenie Sage was saying that whilst the Greens’ view was that the whole issue is important and should be taken through as quickly as possible, the big issue I have with that is that we’ve heard from the Greens many, many times—even in this Parliament; the 52nd Parliament—around the issue of transparency and openness. I think that just cuts across that whole principle. I think that’s a very important principle that we’ve talking about tonight, and at least Eugenie Sage was up front about it and clear that she thought that we should be cutting across that principle.

But the thing I found of perhaps more concern was the early conversations regarding this bill by the Hon Shane Jones. He started out by making a statement—I’m just reading it from the Hansard here—“Now, when the bill goes to the select committee, no doubt, people will endeavour to change some of the provisions. Some might say they’re too restrictive. Some [should] say we [should] let the Aussies enjoy the privilege that we ordinary Kiwis have. That [will] all be teased [out] through … the select committee.”

So, in principle, that sounds fine, but the bit I find very offensive—particularly being a member of the select committee that will be listening to this bill in due course—is that he went on to say, “I say to the other side of the House”—and this is my side, where I’m speaking from—“as they look for people who will continue to find reasons to oppose this bill—which will, actually, because of arithmetic and the coalition agreement, pass, irrespective of what select committee it goes to; irrespective of what mischief members of that select committee might get up to.” I think that cuts across the whole principle of the workings of a select committee, and no doubt the honourable Minister who has proposed this investment bill will want to make sure that this select committee takes the time to actually go through some of the provisions of this bill in detail to make sure that the bill, when it is passed, is in the best form it should be.

Of course, we are talking about Speaker’s ruling 102/7, which says, basically, that if we truncate the select committee process, we should be moving forward as quickly as possible. My issue with this is that if you want to truncate bills, you’ve got to have a very good reason, of course. But the biggest thing about this bill is that it is a very complex bill, and I just want to highlight just a couple of issues in that regard. The first one—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as you do that in relationship to the timing of the select committee.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, it’s in relation to the timing—yeah. I just want to highlight some of these issues because this is why I think this does need due time. The first thing is that I talked about the process for how this bill is going to be operating. One is around the definition of lifestyle blocks and residential blocks, and the lack of clarity around that definition and what that may mean in terms of how foreign buyers may want to use those provisions to get around the elements of this bill.

The second one was around the process for people making Overseas Investment Office (OIO) applications. I did take the House through some of the process for that—very convoluted, very long—and, again, the timing around that and the complexity and the obligations on the OIO. It is one of the considerations that the select committee is going to have to take into account in terms of the workability of this bill, and that is another area of complexity.

The third area is the liability of conveyancers, how they are defined, and the groups of people involved in that, and the fourth was the definition of the mandatory conditions, particularly around the definition of development land, which, in my view—when you look at it, the definition around development land, I think, will be a potential area of a great deal of dispute and submissions from a number of parties. If you want to be a foreign buyer and you want to develop land and buy land in New Zealand, you will buy it and use the definition in a way that you may say you’re going to pull down a building, but you’ve got no time commitments around it. I think that is, perhaps, a wedge that many foreign buyers—

Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is speaking to the substance of the bill, not to the motion.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that’s fine, but it is certainly in the Speaker’s prerogative to judge that—I thank the member for his assistance. I would appreciate it if the member comes to the substance of the motion, which is about the time—

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: —that the bill will be in the select committee.

ANDREW BAYLY: OK. So the reason why I’m highlighting those four issues is that if you start to look at who might have an input into that and who might want to come and see the committee and make proper representations, I think you can start to go through them. There will no doubt be accountants, there will no doubt be lawyers, there will no doubt be financial advisers, there will no doubt be real estate agents, there will no doubt be immigration consultants, and there will no doubt be banking representatives—because they will be funding some of this—and the seventh will be fund managers. I think that if you start to work through how many submissions you might get in each of those areas—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I won’t be working through.

ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If people sit down and actually work out how many potential submissions the committee might receive from these specific groups, that adds up to a considerable number of meetings where the select committee is going to have to listen to very technical, detailed submissions. I just put it to you that that alone justifies why the select committee needs proper time to consider these complex issues.

Now, the other one—I just want to go to Standing Order 195(1), which is: “The chairperson of a select committee may, on behalf of the committee, request any person to attend and give evidence before the committee.” I think, again, by pushing this through in such a short period of time, it is cutting across the right of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to actually operate in an effective manner, and I put it you that that alone is one of the most serious issues with the requirement to bring this all forward, well before what would otherwise be a normal length of period to hear complex arguments. I think we will as a committee, no doubt, be wanting to get some independent input, particularly around the legal aspects, from some of the Government advisers—as well as some of the financial aspects. I think that will all come to pass, and to be pushing that through in late January or early February will be very, very difficult, and will actually lead to a piece of legislation that I don’t think will be in the best interests of New Zealanders.

Now, the other thing with regard to the chair having the right to call people is around the sense of equity about better public engagement. Even if you accept the proposition that the professionals can get back from their holiday, prepare adequate submissions, and give the committee the time to review those properly and hear from advisers, the issue is about the wider public engagement, and I just think that this is a very, very important issue. There will be a lot of public interest in this, and, during the course of January, no one will be focused on this. I think we need to be in a position where the public can have significant input on this matter.

I would just put it to you that not only is that in the public interest but, actually, it is about good government. Being a member of that select committee, I’m in no doubt that all of us—the diligent members from both sides of the House on that committee—will want to take the time to make sure we are hearing all the evidence and advice from the people who have a proper interest in this aspect.

So I just would like to resubmit that I don’t believe that this is in the best interests of the House. I fully support the amendment by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that this report-back date be deferred from 20 February to 19 April. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, this’ll be worth waiting for.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I’m glad you’ve been waiting for it, Ruth Dyson—been waiting since 1993 for a debate like this, I’m sure. I’m pleased that we are debating this. It does deserve the attention of the House prior to us actually voting on it, the reason being that we are considering—let’s break it all down—a truncated select committee process. That is not unusual for the House—it does happen from time to time; I accept that—but we’re considering a truncated select committee process that travels over the Christmas break.

If we’re to ask ourselves, “How do we make good policy?”, and if we’re going to ask ourselves, “How do we ensure”—as I know Speaker Mallard and the Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, believe in—“that a proper MMP parliamentary process goes into the consideration of bills at a select committee?”, we have to step back and ask ourselves, “What’s a decent amount of time for a committee to be considering a piece of legislation?” And a piece of legislation that attacks, somewhat, the rights of individuals to own property in a country is one that I think deserves both more than two months’ select committee process and, certainly, a process that does not extend over the time in which, basically, New Zealand shuts down for a month, people go on holiday, and people are not engaged in what is happening politically. Now, most New Zealanders probably stopped engaging in politics on 1 December, and they probably don’t start engaging again until 1 February. There are others of us who spend a lot more time on these things, but New Zealanders, average New Zealanders who care about these issues, who want to submit—even professionals who are interested in these issues—deserve more time to do so.

I want to talk a little bit about the people in my electorate that I think will take an interest in submitting on a piece of legislation like this. I represent the Botany electorate, which is number one, when you scale all the electorates, in individuals living in an electorate that were born outside of New Zealand. My electorate has 51 percent of its population born outside of New Zealand. Many of those individuals that were born outside of New Zealand are what Phil Twyford might call people with Chinese-sounding names. Certainly, we’re very multicultural, and there’s a high migration into my electorate. Those are the very people who are affected by this. Those are the very people who have family members that would be impacted by this. I’m offended, on their behalf, that they will get only two months, over the Christmas break, over the summer holiday break, to submit on a piece of legislation like this.

I note that the Standing Orders Committee, in 2011, considered this very issue. The Standing Orders Committee, in 2011—whilst I was very junior back then and was not involved, I’m aware of the report. I’m aware that there was discussion at that committee about the norm for select committees to consider legislation. The norm is six months. The committee of the time decided that if there was going to be a change in the time period by which a committee was to consider a bill, a high bar should be set, and almost a penalty should be put in place for a Government.

We’re, effectively, in the penalty time right now, where we are debating this as a Parliament. The committee felt very strongly at the time that there should be some ramifications for a Government that wanted to change the time period. There isn’t much sitting in Speakers’ Rulings, but there are some words about how select committees should have six months or more to consider most bills. There is no intention for the default period for select committee consideration of bills to be shortened, and the Government should exercise due restraint when considering the truncation of the select committee process.

I submit to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government has not exercised due constraint. We are aware of the fact that the Government has not exercised due restraint, by looking at the papers that are on the Table, prepared by Treasury. What is the urgent legislative need for a committee to consider this bill in such a short time frame? What is the problem that has been defined? Well, the problem that’s been defined is that the Government has a 100-day commitment to ban overseas speculators from buying existing homes. That is an urgent issue, because an election was held where—more New Zealanders voted for the National Party than any other party—the Labour Party had a policy and they arbitrarily decided they wanted to implement something within 100 days.

That is the only urgent situation that we have in front of us. That is not an urgent situation that should be one in which we take away the rights of New Zealanders to submit. That is not an urgent reason to remove the rights for New Zealanders to submit to a process. That is not an urgent reason to take away the rights of my constituents, most of which are migrants, to have the ability to submit on a piece of legislation that is designed to attack them. The problem that is defined in the papers that we are seeing on the Table, the problem that the Government has when they’ve come to the Parliament with a piece of legislation—simply that they want to implement something within their 100-day commitment—is no right to take away the rights of New Zealanders.

We also are aware, reading this piece of paper, that there are some significant issues that need to be addressed. There are significant issues that the committee is going to have to look at. Those are issues that a committee should, quite properly, put a lot of effort into.

We have done a bit of a calculation. We said to the staff, “Hey, you guys are smart. You’ve done this before. What is the typical time period by which a committee would need to properly consider a bill? Start at the final point where it delivers the report back and work back from there, and tell us how much time we have.”

We’ve done a bit of a time line: first reading, 19 December; if the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) sits tomorrow and calls for submissions on 20 December; if they truncated that time period, that normal time period we give to people to submit. We said, “Let’s say, get submissions back in by mid-January.” That’s a month’s time to get submissions in—actually, it’s less than a month’s time.

Hon Steven Joyce: It’s mid-January.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: It’s mid-January; that’s right. Most New Zealanders will be experiencing and enjoying Christmas next week and then they’ll go and enjoy the beaches, enjoy Andrew Bayly’s and Stuart Smith’s electorates and my electorate. They’ll be doing that instead of wading through a poorly written piece of rushed legislation.

But if they get their submissions back on 17 January and FEC has some time to consider those submissions—let’s just say the Finance and Expenditure Committee has the time to hold a hearing. They’re not going to have much time to hold a hearing, because they have to instruct the Clerk’s Office as to what they need to do. They need to instruct parliamentary counsel. If they hold submissions on 24 January—and the reason we’re suggesting they need time between 17 and 24 January is so they can actually process the submissions. Let’s remember, the staff, the very people who have to do the work on this, they will be wanting to experience and enjoy a summer holiday as well. If they hold hearings on 24 January for several days, if they manage, and this will be difficult, to get the bill and the submissions all processed in a reasonable period of time, they probably could deliberate on 31 January. Then they could go and ask parliamentary counsel to go and consider drafting changes.

There’s going to be a lot that’s required, because we know, from Treasury’s own words, about all the problems that are in place. Some of my other colleagues might want to investigate this in more detail. They’re going to have to go and instruct the officials as to what they need to do. Probably by 7 February the drafting changes will be back before FEC and that’ll be considered. If they are able to approve the drafting changes by 7 February, then by 14 February they can probably get to a point where they would be able to approve a final version of the bill.

They need to go back to caucuses too. There is a convention, I know, amongst the National Party and amongst the Labour Party and other parties, that these things should go back to party caucuses. If MPs are going to have a reasonable opportunity through the select committee process, through their members, to contribute towards the bill, there needs to be time for it to go through a bit of a caucus process as well. They should be able to look at this on 14 February, all so they can get it back into the House on 20 February.

That is an unbelievably short time frame, especially over the Christmas break. Because the Government has some urgent reason to get their 100-day programme in, we’re now having to force New Zealanders to go through this process and force a select committee to look at a truncated process for a bill that is rushed, which is poorly drafted, and for which Treasury has indicated there are substantial risks and unintended impacts that I know that the House should properly consider. Fundamentally, this bill is about taking away the rights of individuals to purchase property. If you’re going to go and impact on people’s lives in such a way, then we should be doing it in a thorough process.

This side of the House is thoroughly unimpressed with the time frames that are being considered. We expect there to be a longer time frame, and we’ll be supporting the amendments in Gerry Brownlee’s name to have a date in April as a report-back date to consider this bill. Thank you very much.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this House. The Government has given the reason for this particular time frame, as part of their 100-day plan. Well, I’m actually also in my first 100 days and I’d like to make some reflections on what I’m observing.

First of all, there’s been a lot of confusion in this House today as to what the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) actually is called—whether it is the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—

Hon David Parker: Yes.

LAWRENCE YULE: I’ve got it right, the Hon David Parker; that’s good. But there’s been a lot of confusion. That, in itself, speaks volumes not only for the people in this House but for the population of New Zealand. Some modifications were made to the National Party TPP agreement when you went overseas, and the name was one of them, but also some of the foreign-buying regimes—[Interruption] Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m coming to the time frame because that is very relevant. In this very House, before dinner, the Minister advised that this—TPPA—this new one, is unlikely to be signed or could be signed in about two years. So I put it to you: what is the rush? We have a select committee process. We have Speakers’ rulings that have been quoted by many of my colleagues. Speaker’s ruling 102/7 talks about how you should truncate select committees for a very good reason. I struggle to find a very good reason, other than the 100-day plan.

We also had, earlier in the day, a member on the other side saying it doesn’t matter what happens at the select committee or in any other process, because the Government is just going to do this anyway. Well, I think that is a gross abuse of our democratic power and the regime in which this House should operate. But, more importantly, I want to refer to this document, which is a Treasury document that says, when it looked at the range of options considered, “This analysis has been constrained by the Government’s commitment to implement this specific policy. As such, no other housing policy measures—for example, policies that would support the broader objective of increasing the supply of residential property or wider overseas investment regime issues—have been analysed or evaluated.”, and then further goes on to say, “There has been no consultation with the private sector organisations or the public.”

That’s the point I wish to get to, because the Hon Gerry Brownlee put up an amendment that actually, effectively, added another two months, and I think that is a reasonable response to the situation we find ourselves in. The new piece of information I wish to bring to this House relates to what I did in my previous role. It would be unheard of in local government for a council to put out a significant piece of consultation one day before Christmas and expect to have submissions at 20 February. In fact, I’ve had hundreds of letters in my national and local role over the years from people objecting to it, yet it seems OK, on the Tuesday before Christmas, to rush through a time-framed piece of work and then go out, basically, on Christmas Eve and tell people that there will be an opportunity to participate in something and submissions will close well before 20 February.

We all know that in New Zealand everybody likes to take most of January off, so I think, for the significance of this bill and for the issues involved, we are doing both this House and all the people that would like to submit to this process a disservice, whether they are real estate agents, rest home operators—and we heard today, actually, it’s going to be OK for a foreign investor to set up a rest home. Imagine what the other the rest home operators will think of that.

So I believe that nobody will actually focus on this issue between now and about the end of January, professionals or individuals alike—and imagine what is going to occur tomorrow. Are all these institutions that represent real estate agents, lawyers, accountants, and rest homes going to send out something about what this bill says when the bill was only made public at 1 o’clock today?

In this short call, all I really wish to say is that it is my first 100 days, but I look at this as a sham. I look forward to it going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I happen to be on. There are lots of parts of this bill that need intense scrutiny, and the public needs to have a say. I don’t think it’s fair on us or the public that this new, truncated time frame is put together that means we’re going to hear it on 20 February. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That “20 February” be replaced by “19 April 2018”.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the bill be reported to the House by 20 February 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during every evening on a day where there is a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, 194(1)(b) and (c).

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I move, That the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill be now read a second time.

Tonight, we are moving a bill that will fast track the reinstatement of the Canterbury Cathedral and deliver progress on an issue that, after years of frustration and delay, we can finally see some progress on. This is a milestone in Canterbury’s recovery and an important symbol of progress in our city. The devastating earthquakes of February 2011 delivered a significant amount of damage to Christ Church Cathedral. This was, of course, nothing new for the cathedral in terms of earthquake damage. Damage to the building, and especially the spire, has occurred on many occasions: 1881, 1888, 1901, 1922, and, of course, September 2010, but the damage that the February earthquake delivered to the church caused significant damage to that building.

For many people, Christ Church Cathedral is the core symbol of Christchurch. It sits at the heart of our city, both geographically and culturally. The city was, literally, designed around it in 1850, so the origins of the cathedral do date back to the very plans of the Canterbury Association, which had an aim to build a city around a cathedral and a college in a square. The college, it was found after time, couldn’t be accommodated in the square and was later moved on to land designated for Hagley Park, but at the centre of what was then called Ridley Square, it was decided that a cathedral was what the city was going to be built around. Ridley, of course, was named after Bishop Nicholas Ridley, who was a martyr of Oxford of 1550 and who was joined by two other martyrs, his co-martyrs Cranmer and Latimer, whose names also bear squares in Canterbury. This was later called Cathedral Square and is very much part of our history.

But it’s not only our 19th century Canterbury Association and the formation of the city history that the cathedral sits at the centre of. Throughout the 20th and the 21st centuries, this has continued to be an important cultural site for people in Christchurch. In 1974, the Wizard arrived in Christchurch and began to stand on a ladder outside the cathedral. Council attempted to have him arrested in 1974, but he survived and can still be seen in Cathedral Square today. That is a significant amount of time. He arrived the year after I was born; so it’s not hard for me to do the sums on the number of years he’s been speaking.

Since the earthquake, the damaged cathedral has lain unoccupied in our square, and it has come to stand, in the public mind, as a symbol of the slow pace of the recovery, a sign of all that we have lost. This bill begins to set right, and will provide a much-needed injection of momentum and energy into, the rebuild and recovery of our central city.

I want to thank everybody who took part in the select committee process. The bill has, in my view, been greatly improved by the feedback of submitters and members of that committee. Thank you. And I especially want to thank Deborah Russell, who chaired the Environment Committee. It was the first piece of legislation that she chaired through a committee, and I think she did a wonderful job—so thank you.

There’s also a number of other people who I acknowledged in my first reading speech, but I would like to mention them again: the bishop Victoria Matthews and members of the synod; Jim Anderton and Philip Burdon; the mayor; and the former Ministers Gerry Brownlee and Nicky Wagner. I think this has been a good example of collaborative, cross-party work, which has allowed us to get to this point. I thank you for the work you did as Minister, and then your cooperation as a member of the committee.

The bill as it stands now will give huge confidence to people in Christchurch—that there is a clear and practical plan for kickstarting the restoration of the cathedral and ensuring that the heart of our city is once again a vibrant and exciting place. This will give more people the confidence needed to develop, live, work, and play in the heart of our city.

The Environment Committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a few amendments. We support all the changes recommended by the committee. The changes to provide greater clarity to the purpose clause and around the definition of “reinstatement” are positive and will provide clear guidance to ensure this work is done in the best possible manner.

It is also pleasing that the bill will now fully recognise the Cathedral Working Group’s recommendation report as a key document underpinning the process of reinstatement in the bill itself. A huge amount of work and negotiation went into that report, and I think all the groups involved in this process have a very high degree of confidence in it. Giving greater recognition ensures that we’re on the right path, and I think it will further boost confidence in the process. It is also recognition that this legislation builds on a great deal of work that has been going on in the city, from that working group report and the Miriam Dean report that have allowed us to get to this point.

The Environment Committee has also recommended that the time frames in clause 8 be reduced to 15 working days. As the development of orders will be a consultative and iterative process, with potential for engagement to be repeated if there are significant changes to the orders, it is important that the deciding Minister is able to undertake appropriate engagement without slowing the momentum of the reinstatement project. It’s also pleasing to see a faster time line on the process that reflects the wider need for speed and energy to complete the project.

Clause 22 as reported back sets out that an application for review relating to an Order in Council under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 must be made within 28 days. The committee has recommended that the 28-day time frame begin from the date of publication of the reasons for recommending that the relevant order be made. That clarity has been provided by the committee, and I think that is a useful addition to the legislation. This ensures that any individuals wishing to make an application make their decision with all necessary information available to them.

The committee has also recommended clarifying that only specified entities—those being the joint venture or another entity managing the reinstatement of the cathedral—and the review panel are able to propose that the Minister recommend the making of an order. To make sure that there is clarity around that is an important change that has been made. It’s a sensible amendment and will provide a clear framework for the development of orders, which will allow for the reinstatement of the cathedral.

The final change that I wish to mention is the committee’s recommendation to add additional Acts to schedule 2. We thank the committee for carefully considering the recommendation of the Church Property Trustees, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and the Christchurch City Council in recommending additional Acts for schedule 2. This will ensure the Act is fit for purpose and able to manage any issues that may arise during the reinstatement.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the submitters, who submitted in a very close time frame and made very meaningful submissions that have allowed us to improve this legislation. In particular, I’d like to thank the Church Property Trustees, the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust, the Christchurch City Council, and other heritage and legal experts for providing their expertise and their opinion to aid the Environment Committee’s consideration with these ambitious time frames.

This is an extraordinary piece of legislation for an extraordinary set of circumstances. For seven years, Cantabrians have had a broken building at the heart of their city. There is now a strong desire in the city for us to mend that broken centre of our city, to move on, to provide the energy required to get our city moving to be all that it can be. This is an important step that we are making here tonight with furthering this legislation. I thank everybody for their involvement, and I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m absolutely delighted to be able to support this Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. I’m particularly pleased because it’s the last piece of the jigsaw—it’s the last piece of the jigsaw as part of the Government’s offer to reinstate this building, and this will mean that the heart of the city will once again have Christ Church Cathedral.

It’s particularly important for reasons beyond just a building. Yes, it’s a cathedral; yes, it’s a church. It’s a significant heritage building—a category 1 heritage building—and, I suspect, one of the best-known heritage buildings in the country. The reason for that is that since it was completed in the early 1900s, it has been the symbol of Christchurch. It was also the reason that we became the first city of New Zealand. You have to have a cathedral to be a city, so Christ Church Cathedral made Christchurch the first city of New Zealand.

I think the important thing about this building is that everybody who lives in Christchurch, in Canterbury, and even beyond it has some kind of connection—so it’s not only a church, but also a community facility, and also a very important part of our tourism industry. But if you talk to any local people, they will tell you about how they relate to that cathedral, and we’ve heard some of those stories from people in this House. Whether it’s that they put a present under the Christmas tree; whether it was that they climbed the steeple; whether it was that they watched the wizard and waved to him, Rino Tirikatene—it was those things that the people of Christchurch related to that building.

It’s not surprising, because it is geographically in the centre of our city. Cathedral Square, for very many years, was the transport hub of our city. All the cinemas were around the outside of it. If you were going anywhere in Christchurch city, you came through Cathedral Square and you walked past Christ Church Cathedral.

Of course, this all came to a great, abrupt halt with the earthquakes. Now, we did have an earthquake in 2010, and we congratulated ourselves on how the earthquake strengthening looked after the cathedral. They couldn’t actually use it for a few weeks, but they had the engineers look at it and it survived very well in 2010. Not the same on 22 February 2011, and I think we were particularly fortunate that there were no deaths in that cathedral. There were some serious injuries for people who were working there, and for some time we felt that there may have been people in the tower. They thought it could’ve been up to a number of 20 people in the tower who might have perished in the building, but I think it was because there were a couple of shakes and people had the chance to run out that, fortunately, nobody was killed.

But we actually killed the building, and the building has been sitting there, neglected, decaying, in the centre of our city. What it’s done is it’s really reflected not what’s happening at all. It does not reflect the development that’s happened in the city, the recovery that’s been going on, the rebuilding of infrastructure, the new buildings, the new houses, and the people getting on with their lives. It has been a very negative effect. It’s been bad for the central city. It’s been bad for businesses that are working in that area. It’s been particularly difficult for tourism, because we do know that up to 60 percent of our tourists come to Cathedral Square and come to the cathedral. What we’re hoping as we reinstate it is that they’ll come to see it being rebuilt.

Of course, during this time there has been quite a divisive debate about what should actually happen to that cathedral. As I said, everybody has some connection to it, everybody’s had an opinion about what should happen, and it’s gone backwards and forwards. What’s possible? Can we restore it to its greater glory? Should we knock it down? Should we build a modern cathedral that we’ll bill to the congregation that worships there?

The debate has been long and hard. There have actually been court cases about it. So it’s been a very difficult time for the people of Christchurch. In an attempt to get some objective information, the past Minister, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, commissioned Miriam Dean to come up with a report to see what we could actually do with the cathedral, and she got a group of engineers together, and they worked in a collaborative way and they confirmed that, yes, the cathedral could be reinstated at a cost of about $100 million. So suddenly we had some facts—for the first time, we had some facts. But, of course, it was only the fact that it could be done and the cost.

We continued from there. The debate went on, and so the Minister, again, brought together a group of stakeholders to work on a bigger picture. They collaborated together and they created the Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report. The people that were on that group, they came from the Church Property Trustees—the owners—they came from heritage groups, they came from the community, and they really worked hard to try and come up with a collaborative solution.

That report was incredibly detailed. It talked about how the governance would work in a reinstatement, it talked about detailed costings, it talked about how the actual construction could get under way, and then it even looked to the future about how it could be managed. So it was a really important document, and it was a document that brought everybody together. There was quite a lot of trading about what was possible, and everybody signed up to that document. It was a very exciting time when we had some way forward—a blueprint to go forward.

But we still needed to find $100 million. This is where the Government stepped in. I was instrumental in getting this money together. The vast majority of the money—$42 million—came from the insurance funding from the cathedral itself. The Government promised $25 million—a $10 million grant and a $15 million suspended loan. The city council promised $10 million, and I’m very pleased to be able to say that they’ve actually confirmed that. They’ve consulted with the people of Christchurch, and they have confirmed that they are supporting this reinstatement with $10 million. The final money was from philanthropy—the people of Christchurch and beyond who are prepared to put their own money into this project. So we’ve got the amount of money that’s viable to actually rebuild the building and the auxiliary buildings around it. There will still need to be some fund-raising done for the steeple, but that will come after the building is completed and can be in use.

The report was particularly important in terms of going forward, and so I’m really pleased to see that the report underpins this bill. It is mentioned throughout, in the beginning of the bill, and they talk about how we can reinstate using the principles that have been collected.

So what will the bill actually do? Well, really, what it will do is it will streamline the process, it will give certainty, and it will give confidence that the reinstatement can be done. As I’ve said, it covers governance and it covers the construction project and the way forward.

What it will really mean is that the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and the people beyond—we’ll welcome everybody with open arms, and their money to support this rebuild. They can really get behind it and we’ll be able to see that our symbol of Christchurch is actually reinstated and that will have a positive image of our city going forward.

I’d really like to thank everybody who was involved in this process. It has been a long and difficult process. The select committee process, in the Environment Committee, has actually been very pleasant. I think we work collegially together. The submitters were very efficient. They had thrashed this stuff out, so they were able to come forward and make good suggestions. We came back to the select committee. We worked our way through those suggestions, and I think we’ve ended up with a pretty good bill. And I’m certain that it will give confidence to the people of Christchurch and the people who are going to be involved in this process, to allow us to go forward.

In summary, I think this bill is a good solution. It’s a good solution to a challenging issue. It’s good for the people of Christchurch—and we did note this: that it’s good for them culturally, socially, and economically. It will bring the heart of the city back and it will focus on the regeneration of our city. It will be particularly good in terms of revitalising our city centre, and that’s the next step in the regeneration process: bringing tourists back and having a symbol that is in one piece. I will be very excited to see the work that’s going to happen over the next few years.

So kia ora, and thank you to the Minister for all her work.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I’ve been to Christchurch only a few times since the earthquake, mostly to the outskirts and only once to Cathedral Square where, with my family, we rode the tram around and saw the broken cathedral. It was heartbreaking, even for someone who has not come from that part of the country. All I could think was that that building needed to be repaired. But, as we all know, there was an impasse—litigation, discussions back and forth, and no one could quite agree what to do with the cathedral.

It was what sometimes gets called a “wicked” problem. Typically, wicked problems end up on the Government’s desk. The interesting thing about this particular wicked problem, though, is that although Government was involved in helping to sort the problems out, ultimately the solution that was arrived at was driven by the people of Christchurch themselves—by the people that the Hon Nicky Wagner has talked about who are involved in the Cathedral Working Group. They were the people who found the solution. That was people like the Church Property Trustees, Heritage New Zealand, the city council, the mayor, the bishop—all the people who had a stake in that building, whether they were members of the cathedral community itself or members of the wider Christchurch community—that’s how much the cathedral means. It is a symbol of Christchurch itself. The solution they came up with is very much a collaborative solution.

I think this collaborative approach was very much echoed in the select committee process we just worked through in the Environment Committee, and here I would like to pay particular tribute to the Hon Nicky Wagner, who, with her local knowledge and her local commitment to that cathedral, contributed that knowledge and expertise so willingly to help us come up with a good solution and what is, I think, a good piece of legislation.

What this particular bill does is it puts in place a legislative framework by which work on the cathedral can go ahead. What it does is it gets the process going. In particular, it does that because what we have in Christ Church Cathedral is an emergency. It’s a slow-moving emergency, one that has grown over years and years and now needs a fix. The fix that is come up with is a particular process of using Orders in Council—Orders in Council that set aside some of the normal mechanisms of the law, set aside some of the normal protections we have, on the say-so of the Minister, in order to get the cathedral rebuilt.

Now, that’s a dangerous power to give to a Minister, that the Minister may set aside some portions of the law. We have a necessity for that because of the slow-moving emergency, and what we have in this bill is a series of protections—the sorts of protections that are vital to a democracy.

The Minister may request that the Governor-General issues an Order in Council, and that Order in Council can set aside some Acts and say that those Acts don’t need to be complied with. But here’s the first protection: it’s only some Acts, and only Acts that are specific to the rebuilding of the cathedral. And here’s the second protection: it’s only in a very limited area—the cathedral area, which is the cathedral buildings itself and the land immediately around it and the roads immediately around that. So, straight away, we’ve got restrictions on the power of the Minister. Some of the restrictions that the Minister can’t set aside are, of course, health and safety provisions. All this so that the building can get going.

The Minister may recommend an Order in Council, but only for the purpose of the bill, and the purpose is very clearly specified—it’s about reinstating the cathedral. When the Minister issues an Order in Council, the Minister must engage with the relevant local authorities and with the public, and—importantly—there is a review panel. That review panel is not a representative panel. It’s an expert panel—people with the knowledge, the skills, and the experience to be able to make a judgment as to whether what the Minister is requesting is appropriate and needed.

So this is a series of checks on the power of the Minister to ensure that whenever the Minister recommends an Order in Council, that Order in Council is actually needed for the purpose of reinstating the cathedral. These are the sorts of checks and balances we like to see in our democratic system. And even then, when there are all these checks and balances, anything that the Minister orders is still subject to judicial review. Now it’s a limited judicial review—only 28 days—but with the amount of collaboration and consultation and the ongoing discussion that has gone on around the cathedral, all the consultation has already happened, and we have, nevertheless, provided for this judicial review. It’s a final check on the Minister.

The Minister must report to the Parliament every year on the operation of these Orders in Council, and, of course, the Minister is subject to the ultimate review of our triennial elections. In other words, all the checks and balances are in place to enable this cathedral to be reinstated, using Orders in Council, so that the job can get done and so that that broken building can be reinstated, because we want to help the community of Christchurch to find a way forward.

As this Parliament, we are here to help our community in New Zealand. This bill does that for the community of Christchurch and for the wider community of New Zealand, which cares about this cathedral. We want to help rebuild this cathedral, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a great sense of pride, standing in wholehearted support of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill in its second reading. There is only one thing worse than a cathedral sitting half-damaged and derelict in Cathedral Square. There’s only one thing worse than that, and that’s a half-built cathedral sitting in Cathedral Square, for the people of Canterbury.

So there was a lot of importance and there was a lot of pressure on the Environment Committee to ensure we got this enabling legislation right. I don’t think anyone wants to see this reinstatement project go ahead only to falter two, three, five, or seven years into the expected period of 10 years. So I think it’s great that we’re bringing this bill back in in good shape.

It’s important that a bill goes to a select committee. It gets hearings by the public. The select committee reflects on the submissions and makes appropriate amendments. I think this bill is in good shape. At the risk of being flippant, one of the reasons it’s in good shape is because it started off in good shape, and I do want to acknowledge the Greater Christchurch regeneration Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, for her work on that but also, of course, the Hon Nicky Wagner, the former Greater Christchurch regeneration Minister, for all her work previously in driving the stakeholders forward, getting them together collaboratively, and tying this up with the Cathedral Working Group report and recommendations.

I feel this bill is coming back from the select committee in good shape also because of the submissions. The submissions demonstrated to the people hearing them that the stakeholders, although acrimonious at times, actually are somewhat speaking from the same page now, are somewhat aligned, as much as they can be, and I think that puts this bill in good stead.

Finally, I think this bill comes back in good shape thanks to the work of not only the members of the select committee—the cross-party members from not only Canterbury but around New Zealand who see the importance of getting this enabling legislation right—but also the advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and also the secretariat of the select committee, who were able to respond and be responsible, responsive, and flexible to ensure that this bill was turned round in a short time frame. So I would like to acknowledge them at this time. Like I say, if this bill wasn’t coming back in a good shape, not only would we be at risk of having a half-damaged cathedral sitting in Cathedral Square but we would also be at risk, potentially, of one thing worse, which would be a half-built cathedral sitting in Cathedral Square.

So when we went down last week to listen to the submissions, we had about 78 submissions and we heard about seven in Christchurch and Wellington. It actually rained last Tuesday, which probably doesn’t sound that unusual, but if you’re from Christchurch, you’d actually know that we went 47 days without rain—the driest period in 75 years of the history of Christchurch—yet when we arrived, it was raining. Without drawing too much of a conclusion, it’s fair to say the drought had broken, and I firmly believe the drought has broken on the issues of the Christ Church Cathedral and its reinstatement. I am looking forward to the passing of this enabling legislation that will drive forward the reinstatement of our loved cathedral.

One of the areas we touched on as a select committee that caused a wide-ranging debate—which was very helpful and very productive—was the inclusion of further Acts under schedule 2. So it includes now the Building Act 2004, the Land Transfer Act 2017, the Local Government Act 1974 and the Local Government Act 2002, the Public Works Act of 1981, and the Reserves Act of 1977. I think it’s important that all these Acts are now in the schedule. We are looking at legislation that will cover a 10- to 15-year period, and so I think it’s quite right that those Acts are now included, coming back from the select committee process.

One of the points I raised in my call on the first reading was how important it was going to be for the select committee to enshrine the Cathedral Working Group recommendations in this bill. It’s important that we knew we weren’t starting from scratch. We weren’t going to relitigate a lot of the debate that had gone on. In a sense, we were going to enshrine the Cathedral Working Group recommendations in this bill. So I’m happy to report back that we were able to do that.

In clause 2A, “Background to this Act”, in Part 1, it says: “(1) This Act fulfils part of the Government’s offer to support the reinstatement of the Cathedral. (2) The proposed reinstatement is the culmination of a long period of facilitation, negotiation, and investigations, and is intrinsically linked to 2 key reports facilitated by the Government, including the [Cathedral Working Group] Report.” So, right from the start, this will direct the readers of this bill and, ultimately, the legislation to the background of this Act, which is, primarily, the report from the Cathedral Working Group and its recommendations.

We also, after much discussion, agreed on inserting under clause 4, “Interpretation”, a reference to the Cathedral Working Group report, as well as under the definition of “reinstatement”: “(aa) [that] any activity in relation to any part of the Cathedral that the [Cathedral Working Group] Report contemplates as being a reinstatement activity:”. Clearly, again, we were able to enshrine the Cathedral Working Group report and recommendations in this bill. That will direct our further direction of travel, because what we’re talking about is a building process that will unfold over 10 to 15 years.

One submission I want to talk to specifically is from the Pacific Youth Leadership and Transformation Council. There’ll be many Canterbury MPs that know this organisation, a Christchurch-based organisation that assists Pacific young people to participate in democracy. I was invited, as well as Poto Williams, from Labour, to be on a candidates debate during the election. They got a fantastic crowd there, and it was great to see the young people engaging in the democratic process.

They put in their submission, which I think is worth highlighting, that they wanted young people to be involved in the review panel for Orders in Council. Now, speaking personally—but I’m sure the other people on the select committee would agree—we would have loved to have had them on the review panel for Orders in Council, but, unfortunately, the review panel is not meant to be representative; it’s actually a technical panel. So, of course, if those young people have the technical expertise, the knowledge, and the skills, hopefully we’ll see them on the panel, but I wanted to state for the Hansard that, in fact, because it’s a technical panel, not a representative panel, that’s why we didn’t proceed with their submission and their recommendations.

Just to point out for that organisation, under clause 9—and I know I’ve got the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration in the House here—there is an opportunity for the Minister to seek comments and engagement from young people. So I would request that the Minister would do that, not only with this young persons organisation but with all young people’s organisations in Canterbury, because we do know that in Canterbury we are rebuilding and regenerating, not necessarily for our generation but for our children’s generation, what this city will look like in 20 and 30 years’ time.

Just a final point and remark as I close: it was fantastic to see the Christchurch City Council agree to the $10 million funding grant that they had previously pledged. They voted on that this morning, and that will go ahead, as well as the Crown contribution and other fund-raising initiatives. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s a great pleasure that I rise to support this second reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. Of course, the purpose of this bill is to expedite the reinstatement of the Christ Church Anglican Cathedral—a project that has been dogged by delay, by legal disputes, as we have been hearing. This, of course, is not totally unexpected given the historic nature of this building and the emotion that it evokes. Of course, as we’ve just heard from Mr Doocey, it’s not an inconsiderable level of funding that has been required to get us to this point too, and I note the Christchurch City Council’s vote this morning, and also the Government’s proposed contribution of $10 million.

This is the most important of buildings—a building that above all others symbolises Christchurch and Canterbury, a building that sits proudly at the very centre of that great city, surrounded by its very own Cathedral Square where generations of Cantabrians have come to worship or to celebrate our great occasions. It’s a heritage 1 building, and it’s a magnificent—or it was, indeed—example of gothic architecture. It has stood as a symbol of strength, stoicism, and pride of those early settlers who settled Christchurch and Canterbury.

While the recovery, particularly in the inner city, has been slow, particularly around those anchor projects, I think it’s important and I am pleased that we are not playing too much politics around this. In fact, I believe it is important to the people of Christchurch that no less than a bipartisan approach is required, and it is this solidarity of this House that we need to signal this evening. The people of Christchurch have suffered enough already.

In the first reading, I spoke of the powerful impact it had on me personally—just watching the coverage on television and seeing that magnificent building fall. While Christchurch has exploded to the west and to the north, there is something not quite complete about that recovery while this most special and, may I say, sacred of buildings sits in ruins. It symbolises a job not yet done, a job not complete, and Christchurch can never fully move on while the cathedral sits in this damaged state.

I’m proud to say that New Zealand First are not johnny-come-latelys in this debate. We have been there all the way through. I note the words of Winston Peters, as he stood in front of the cathedral on 28 May this year. I quote: “It’s time to play ball, and you have my personal undertaking that if this Government doesn’t start now, we will start this project after the next election.” Today we deliver on that pledge, putting our shoulder to the wheel of this coalition Government.

I commend Dr Woods on her sense of urgency in bringing this bill before the House, on behalf of this coalition Government. I commend the Environment Committee, chaired by Dr Russell, and I also note other members of that committee in this House who have worked very collegially. I particularly note my colleague here Jenny Marcroft who did most of the heavy lifting here on behalf of New Zealand First.

As has been noted, this was a truncated select committee process, but it is important to note, as has been done before, that there has been a lot of work going on here by the comprehensive report brought by the Cathedral Working Group, and this bill pretty much enshrines those recommendations.

But it is a bill that deserves some scrutiny when you are granting Ministers special powers over planning laws. Of course, there is a precedent to this. Unfortunately, we are getting quite a lot of precedents with the natural disasters that we’ve had lately. But I will note the sunset clause there of 15 years, and that the select committee process actually worked as it should. It moderated aspects of that bill and put some checks and balances in place, as Dr Russell pointed out earlier on.

I did sit on the select committee as a guest on occasion, and I particularly noted the submission from Heritage New Zealand and the pragmatism that they showed within their submission: “We cannot exactly replicate this old structure. There needs to be leeway to design and build a faithful reproduction but without dogmatically insisting on replicating 170-year-old materials and techniques. Technology has moved on, and it promises to be able to build a spectacular reinstatement, safer and better than what went before.”

As I speak to this bill—and when it passes, we can finally put in place another important step in returning that cathedral to the heart of Christchurch, where one belongs. New Zealand First has much pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to talk at the second reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. It’s the first time I’ve taken a call on this, but I’ve had the privilege through the select committee process of reacquainting myself with a symbol of Christchurch that was very familiar to me when I was a young horticulture student many years ago at Lincoln University.

As the Hon Nicky Wagner has said, the cathedral has always been a proud symbol of that city. As with many who have expressed views in the House tonight, and on other occasions, it was a particularly poignant and sad time when we witnessed the destruction of that cathedral. I’d almost forgotten, until the Hon Nicky Wagner spoke of it, about how we thought in the first couple of days that there might be up to 20 other people underneath that ruined steeple. So there were layers of horror and some relief, but, ultimately, this is a situation that has gone on far too long.

This enabling legislation, I think, gets the balance right. The legislation that we were debating a little earlier tonight—fiercely debating—the truncated process around the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, we feel doesn’t serve the public well. This is a piece of legislation, by contrast, that does need to be put through in a hurry, because it does need to be moved on. It has been there too long, in a state of ruin. The select committee process—the 28 submissions that we received, and the seven oral submitters whom we heard in both Christchurch and Wellington, all made very good points that were carefully discussed.

I commend the officials and the other experts who have worked on putting this together over weekends and late at night. They have really pulled out the stops, as we all have. I understand that, and commend the current Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, who has done a very good job in shepherding this through her caucus, along with you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and other members of the committee—I’ll try not to spill my water all over my notes, but that didn’t work too well—who have really brought to this process a great degree of knowledge and heart. The intellectual rigour has not been lost, and also the emotion of what this means to the city.

I commend, in particular, the Hon Nicky Wagner for her years of dedication to this. I know, because I was sitting around the Cabinet table, how hard she fought to get that $10 million from the Crown and the extra $15 million in the suspensory loan. I’m delighted that the city council voted it through today. It is indeed serendipitous, and it’s an auspicious occasion when, on a day like today, the House comes together across all parties to support an enabling piece of legislation that will do this city proud, and that building will get what it deserves.

There will always be detractors. There will always be people who claim it should have been demolished or it should be restored to the absolute perfection of 100 percent heritage values, using the integrity of the old materials, and so forth. But there’s been a level of pragmatism, which has shone through this process, and I think we’ve arrived at a good place.

Other speakers have acknowledged Heritage New Zealand. Having had more than a passing acquaintanceship with them over the past three years as their former Minister, I would say that they are an organisation who very well combine pragmatism and practical solutions, but they never lose the integrity of the spirit and the wairua of the buildings that they’re talking about and making recommendations on. So when they came and spoke to us about some of the semantics—you know, what should we call this? Reinstatement? Restoration? These words are loaded. Everyone has a different definition of them, but it was very important to steer that middle course and to ensure that we acknowledged that there was a strength and a unity of purpose about this enabling legislation that would serve the city well. So although there were detractors and there were people who made submissions attempting to relitigate the entire nature of the project, we were able to steer it through.

I commend Dr Deborah Russell on her first outing as a chair in Parliament, as a new MP, and putting this one through. Well done. The spirit of cooperation across the parties, as I say, meant that we could have reasoned and sensible discussions. I think that there’s a great deal of trust in this process because it has been going on for so long and so many different entities have been involved. We were able to peel away some of the layers and get to the points that really needed to be made. So some of the safeguards that on this side of the House we wanted reassurance on were there.

We were a little worried initially at increasing the number of Acts that the Minister would be able to use in a truncated and abbreviated form, but because of the narrow focus and scope of this enabling legislation it was very apparent to us, after broad discussions, that we could trust the process of the Order in Council, of having a local committee. We have spoken of this, and other speakers have alluded to the fact that it is an expert committee—that they will be people who will be able to test the waters, who will be able to reflect what the people of the city want and what the visitors want—you know, just to continue to tread that fine line so that the Minister has the right advice to be able to make the right decisions, and we are satisfied that it’s not open to abuses or precedents.

The Order in Council process, which is very focused on reinstating the cathedral, I think, will also enable a pace of restoration reinstatement to occur that will not be able to be held up by vexatious individuals who would seek to stop it for whatever reasons. So I have, and we have on this side of the House, real confidence that the arrangements that have been arrived at, with the Orders in Council, will serve the city very well.

The judicial review process, if it comes to that, is very clearly set out as again wanting a judicial review to occur within a reasonable period of time. Twenty-eight days is enough time for people to consider it, argue it through, prepare the right material, but they won’t have a great deal of time or the ability to hold things up in a way that would not be helpful to the overall project. I think, again, it shows a level of pragmatism around these things. As the Hon Nicky Wagner said, by streamlining the process, and by giving it a very good firm structure of enabling legislation we will provide confidence and certainty in that process.

I think the construction of this building will be watched very carefully by many people around New Zealand, and particularly those in Christchurch. We were all interested to ensure that the tram, which has given an opportunity to open up the world, as it were, of restoration—this has gone extraordinarily well in many of the buildings in Christchurch. The Christchurch Community Arts Council is world-class and the Christchurch Arts Centre. Because of the nature of the project, the way it has been achieved, the way the experts and others have collaborated, and the use of new technology and new methods—all around the world people are grappling with earthquakes and how to preserve heritage. These are vitally important issues.

The world is a small place and we need to be able to talk to people in Japan, throughout Europe, and throughout other countries that have experienced what Christchurch has experienced and come up with good, modern solutions that will provide ongoing safety and yet stability to this very important building: being able to inject mortar with particular substances that will lend it strength, to wrap an invisible wallpaper around some of the structures to hold them in place so that the safety of the public is reassured. For any of us who know and love that city and who have felt for the ongoing horrors, really, of the times that those people have lived through, who have lived in that city, we know how important public safety is. And while the heritage values and the look of the cathedral are vitally important, it is also absolutely important that the safeguards are there in terms of the materials that are being used and that this cathedral, after so much trouble, after so much discussion, and after so much effort by so many can be preserved in perpetuity with the integrity of its heritage values intact.

So I would feel very confident—and if people are listening and concerned that this has been a short process, let me reassure them that we have lacked no rigour behind the scenes in examining what might go wrong and how it must not be allowed to stand in the way of the solution that the majority of people have worked through. The people that have worked in the past, from the Miriam Dean report onwards, the trust, the synod, the church itself—there are so many people that have contributed to the right outcome. They’ve given their time and their efforts generously and without charge, and they are remarkable individuals. To me, the body of work that has gone into getting us to where we are here today in the House is a tribute to the love that the people of Christchurch have for their cathedral and the strong desire for us all to work together to achieve the right outcomes for this extraordinary building. In this legislation, which I commend to the House, we have achieved all that we set out to do.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki ōku hoa kaimahi, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to all my colleagues, greetings to all.]

I rise with pleasure to support the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. I welcomed the opportunity, as a member coming into this particular issue quite cold, to be honest, and also as a non-Cantabrian, a non - Christchurch resident. I really enjoyed, I have to say, the process that this particular legislation has been through to this point, which allowed me to get a clearer understanding of both the importance of this bill and what it is attempting to do to reinvigorate the community in the heart of Christchurch by reinstating the cathedral, which, of course, was badly damaged by the earthquakes in February 2011.

As we heard from many of the submitters and many of the local MPs from Christchurch as well, it almost has not changed its look from the time it was actually damaged. People were quite concerned that even today, almost seven years later, it still looks somewhat the same. It still is an eyesore in the community and has not allowed people to move on—not to move on to forget the tragedy but to move on and acknowledge what has happened in a way that is positive, where people can see a rebuild, a re-enjoyment of what the Christ Church Cathedral has to offer, and the absolute impacts that the current broken state of the cathedral—the state of disrepair of the cathedral—has on the whole regeneration of Christchurch, and not just its immediate surroundings.

So we know that the recovery, the reinstatement, of the cathedral was delayed a bit by some of the stilted conversation and the stilted debate, including litigation, and so it came to us, the responsibility, to somehow try and restore the process alongside the cathedral itself. That is where this bill has come from, in my understanding: to make sure that with expedience, in a way that is cost-effective and gives earlier and greater certainty for the community of Christchurch, we can actually move forward and progress the rebuild.

I have enjoyed being our permanent member on the Environment Committee for the Green Party, to sort of walk me through this process. I too welcomed the select committee’s advice, our advice, to make sure that the work of the Cathedral Working Group, and their report, was put front and centre into the consideration and the read of this legislation. It is the spirit of the recommendations of that very report that this legislation balances on.

The report from the Cathedral Working Group concluded that to repair only, or to restore only, would not be viable engineering options because they would not bring the cathedral either in part, or in whole, up to 100 percent of the seismic requirements of the new building code. And so, we have this legislation to facilitate a building that also helps us to live up to those safety requirements.

So what does the bill actually do? And this is where I do appreciate the process of the Environment Committee, because the bill most certainly does give extraordinary powers to the Minister responsible for the reinstatement work of this cathedral, and we must at all times be cautious and considered with granting extraordinary powers to any representative in this House. And so, cautious and considered we have been, I believe, and someone might want to correct me if I’m wrong, but that is indicated by the fact that this may be one of the first unanimously agreed pieces of legislation in this parliamentary term so far, I think. That is because we did absolutely take care in the granting of these extraordinary powers, bound and restricted by the checks and balances also contained in this legislation. The extraordinary powers manifest by an Order in Council, and an Order in Council are simply a way where the relevant Minister will be able to perhaps put to the side, extend, or add extra bits on to specific legislative requirements.

Now, the reason why this is extraordinary is because it, you know, on face value, can seem like it’s a way to step around laws that we have made—and it is. And that’s the heart of why we’ve had to be so careful about this. But I am satisfied—which is why our Environment Committee report was unanimous—that we have got in place good, careful checks and balances.

I do want to touch on the select committee process and the submissions that we heard, and I absolutely have to thank the officials, who, in this truncated process, did some incredible work for us to bring to us all of the changes and all of the suggestions, and did the investigations for us on the questions that we demanded an answer to so that we could be sure that we were granting extraordinary powers in a way that was appropriate and safe. So thank you so much to those officials.

I want to mention, in particular, the submission from the Christchurch City Council, who, in all fairness, wanted to be heard: that they needed to be involved from the get-go; that they want to be a close partner in developing and commenting on those extraordinary orders with the Minister. And I absolutely understand and hear that, which is why the select committee included into the legislation a proactive engagement with the Christchurch City Council and we urge, with the leadership of the Environment Committee, that that be one of the many relationships that must be upheld and handled well.

We did, absolutely, add more pieces of law to the schedule, so we sort of said—we did agree—that there were other Acts that should come under the net of these extraordinary powers. That can seem like a dangerous thing, and it should be seen like that, and so we had to again make sure that the Acts were relevant and that the relevant Ministers of those pieces of legislation will be consulted with. So I’m happy with the way that we have added more pieces of law into the net of the Minister’s extraordinary powers.

I want to talk about the select committee making sure that reinstatement—the definition of it in the bill—includes construction, reconstruction, and restoration. We wanted to capture the heart of what we mean, and allow for the necessary flexibility when reinstating the cathedral, and it included, as the Hon Maggie Barry has already stated, the new materials which could include new technologies. So that’s about understanding that there is more than one way of us getting to a place where the mana and integrity of the cathedral are upheld in the spirit that the Cathedral Working Group have intended.

So moving forward—oh, a little bit more on the checks and balances, because that is really important. The Minister’s reasons for making an order for these extraordinary powers have to be published, and, again, the select committee noted that those publications should be dispersed in a way that is proactive and that for relevant organisations and people, regardless of whether it’s in the actual legislation, we fully recommend that those proactive approaches to those organisations are made where at all possible.

The review panel absolutely must review the draft of that extraordinary order and make sure that it checks that this is OK, that this is safe and appropriate for what is intended, and, of course, that the public engagement mechanism is still included in this draft. I think, just to end off, really what we want here is the balance of making sure that we can heal and assist the Christchurch community to heal, heal the cathedral, and maintain a balance of making sure that the relationships and the community are taken with this process and that they are never forgotten. And that was, in particular, one of the recommendations from the Christchurch Heritage Trust: that there is a way that we can do this that takes the community with us. And so I endorse this bill to the House. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am really happy and proud to take a call on the second reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. This is the first bill that I’ve been involved in via the select committee process, and it was a fantastic introduction to how well parties from all sides of the House can work so well together.

Firstly, can I thank Deborah Russell. She was our chair—fellow 2017 newbie—who did a fantastic job of guiding us through this process. Environment Committee members worked collaboratively and with a shared purpose, and the outcome was a bill that has some changes that reflect a balance of views that we heard from the submitters.

I heard the word “healing”, not only from Marama just now but many times in the select committee process, and, for me, that was the word that summed up the combined purpose that we all felt on the select committee. The perspective that I brought to the select committee, and to this debate, is one of a non-Cantabrian. Although I lived in Christchurch for a year while at university, and I fell in love with that beautiful city, I cannot in any way claim to know how Cantabrians feel or start to imagine what they went through.

The select committee, however, had some true-blue Cantabrians on it—and some true-red Cantabrians as well. The contributions from Nicky Wagner, Matt Doocey, Ruth Dyson, and Duncan Webb reflected their commitment to Christchurch, their knowledge and their understanding of the wider context and the background to this legislation.

We were given a very short time frame to consider this bill, and we did an exceptional job in only a couple of weeks. It is important to note, however, that the two-week select committee process was truncated. However, in regards to the work that has already been done in this area, we believe that those two weeks were sufficient to finalise the legislation. And despite the short time frame that we had, can I say that after this select committee process, I have a number of new understandings and appreciations, one of which is how very important the Christ Church Cathedral is to the people of Canterbury.

It was my initial task as a member of this select committee to understand the wider context of the issue of the reinstatement and to understand the background to this very important bill. Six years ago, Christchurch’s devastating earthquake changed lives for ever. The devastation that occurred to the cathedral was immense, and it has come to be seen as a symbol—a poignant visual reminder of what happened that day. Through this process, I came to understand that the reinstatement of the cathedral will be symbolic in its own way. It will be a symbol of healing and a symbol of moving forward. There are, of course, many people who feel passionately about the cathedral who were prepared to go to great lengths to put forward their views, and understandably so. However, after six years, it is time to move forward, time to get this project under way, and time to heal.

The wider context of this bill, and something that was very much on the minds of the select committee members, was the deliberations, the litigation, and the inaction for six long years that was holding up any work around the cathedral because of these competing passions. In 2016, the Cathedral Working Group brought together all sides and prepared a report, which was the basis of a compromise between all of those competing parties. It’s really important that I take the time at this point to acknowledge my colleague Nicky Wagner for all her work in Christchurch to bring together all sides to come to this agreement. This report is a testament to her hard work over many years.

Our initial discussions in select committee were very much around the working group’s report. It was our intention to refer to the report in this bill so that the good-faith negotiations that took place would not be undermined and would not be compromised. We considered it vital that any person reading the legislation should understand the context in which this came about. We wanted to be clear that the approach that the bill proposes comes out of a long period of negotiation, the success of which was assisted by two key reports that were facilitated by the Government. One of these was the Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report of 2016, and so we had this written into Part 1 of the bill as part of the background to the bill. New clause 2A(2) reads, “The proposed reinstatement is the culmination of a long period of facilitation, negotiation, and investigations, … intrinsically linked to [the] 2 key reports facilitated by the Government, including the [Cathedral Working Group] Report.”

So the mention of this working group report was a major consideration for us on the select committee. We wanted to ensure that these negotiations, undertaken in good faith, were recognised as the foundations to this bill, and I believe that the insertion of the working group’s report in Part 1 of this bill achieved what we were after in terms of recognising that report. It was always important to us to make it known to all parties who have been involved in the cathedral deliberations and involved in the Cathedral Working Group report that this report will be the basis of future work.

The committee received 28 submissions, and we heard seven in person, both in Wellington and in Christchurch last week. For the most part, the submissions were in favour of the bill and called for some adjustments. The general themes from the submitters were around justification for the bill’s enabling powers, the need for clear purpose and definitions to ensure an appropriate reinstatement, judicial review and time line, the process for engagement and participation, and the potential need for other enactments to be included in schedule 2.

But the crux of the matter, for me, came down to the urgent need to get the cathedral reinstatement process under way, and to start that healing process I talked about, versus the potential precedent-setting of giving wide-ranging Order in Council powers to override a number of Acts to a Minister in a non-emergency situation. The committee considered both sides of this issue very carefully, and I can say that all members of the select committee worked collaboratively to balance these competing issues. One of the submitters was the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, who were particularly concerned with a few matters, in particular that there had not been a showing of sufficient urgency to enact this legislation now and with a shortened process. It was their view that this situation wasn’t akin to other situations where such legislation had been introduced, such as Kaikōura. It was their opinion that we should consider waiting for a detailed proposal for reinstatement, which hasn’t been completed yet, so that a more tailored bill could be put in front of the House, and that would contain specific consents that would be required for reinstatement. In their view, it would limit the powers further that we’re giving the Minister under this legislation.

These were all issues that the committee considered very seriously, and, in fact, some of those issues came up in other submissions. One of the considerations that the select committee came to was that this is very complex and, frankly, it’s a massive project. Some of the work that will need to be undertaken will have never been done before and will require new and innovative techniques. Needless to say, there will be many unknowns, many challenges, and many issues that arise that will not have been foreseen in the detailed proposal. The select committee were of the view that even a detailed proposal, completed in advance of any legislation, would most likely be—that given the complexity of this project, the Minister would still need that flexibility that this bill offers in order to get the reinstatement done in a timely and cost-effective manner.

On balance, the committee felt that although this bill is not in response to an emergency situation like Christchurch or Kaikōura, which have seen similar legislation enacted, it is in response to something that is, as I said at the beginning of this speech, vital to the healing of Canterbury and to ending the prolonged litigation between very passionate advocates on all sides of the cathedral debate that has been going on for six years.

There were many other issues that were raised, and other speakers have mentioned and will continue to mention those in their speeches, so I will leave my contribution here, apart from to say that I am happy that our select committee worked incredibly hard over a short time frame to deliver a bill that we believe, unanimously, is fit for purpose. I am pleased to say that I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Duncan Webb. I understand this is a split call—five minutes.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I really want to address only one thing, but I think it’s a matter of some importance. There were a number of submitters who raised considerable concerns around the measures in this bill. Indeed, this is extraordinary legislation, but I would say it is extraordinary because of extraordinary circumstances. Certainly, it does give the Minister the power to, essentially, suspend legislation, and also indeed to add through Order in Council to the list of legislation that can be suspended, and those provisions are well recognised as being quite out of the ordinary and to be used with the utmost caution. I recognise the considerable skill and knowledge of many of the submitters in the area of constitutional law and legislative design that raised these issues, and indeed the Regulations Review Committee of this House advised the Environment Committee of its concerns—

Chris Bishop: Not a patch on you, Duncan.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There’s some great membership in both of those committees, if I might say—ha, ha! But, having said that, there are significant limits on these powers and I just want to touch on those. Firstly, this legislation relates only to a relatively small parcel of land in Cathedral Square. It’s also limited by time. This legislation will indeed expire, and, of course, the rules—the Orders in Council—may be made only for limited purposes, as set out in the bill. There’s also a very rigorous process by which those Orders in Council can be made. They can be made only by the appropriate proponents and with an appropriate consultative procedure as set out in clause 9.

Probably more important are the protections in place including, once again, the Regulations Review Committee and indeed this House. It’s also worth noting that the right of judicial review was preserved, and that is really important, because, ultimately what that means is any decision of the Minister is subject to the law, and the fact is that government always must be according to law and that will remain the case. And, of course, there is the review panel, which plays an important role in advising the Minister in respect of those orders and, ultimately, an annual report to the House in respect of any steps taken.

So I want to acknowledge the very important and well-founded concerns, and the debate in this House that has recognised them, and I commend the Minister for being here and taking note of those concerns. I’m sure she’ll take them into account when she comes to exercise those powers. But this is an extraordinary building. I hope that this building will, like the Arts Centre, be deserving of Unesco awards and architectural awards, because the restoration of this building will give back to Christchurch one of its greatest monuments. Thank you.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I stand to make a brief contribution to the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. I first of all want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, for picking up this bill and being a strong advocate for ensuring that it meets a very satisfactory end for all Cantabrians and all New Zealanders to do with the reinstatement of the cathedral. Because this is my first contribution on this bill, I also want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner. In one newspaper article she was noted as being the “Minister of Sunshine”, and you are, Nicky. You have always been the “Minister of Sunshine” and a great cheerleader for everything that happens within Christchurch City. I want to also acknowledge her predecessor, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, for the work that he did in making sure that the Hon Nicky Wagner had some good packages to move forward with, and so too—handing over to the Hon Megan Woods.

I just want to talk a little bit about the Christ Church Cathedral and its connection to the Anglican Church and how it all came about. As we know, in 1532 Henry VIII wanted to marry Catherine of Aragon, and in order to do that he had to get a divorce. Because England was part of the Catholic community and Pope Clement VII refused him consent to divorce Catherine of Aragon, he decided to take the whole of England from the Roman Catholic Church, and, hello, the Anglicans came to be. One of the things I just also want to say about that is on my visit to London this year I actually went into the only Catholic church that’s actually in England, and that’s in the basement of Parliament House. So that’s really quite interesting. However, I digress.

I just want to talk a little bit about my connection to the cathedral, because I visited the cathedral when I was in high school, and I thought, “What an amazing cathedral. What an amazing church.” I thought it was highly ornate. I’d never seen anything like that. This was a country girl, who’d been brought up, you know, in a farming community. I’d never seen anything like that, and I was absolutely stunned. And so years later I took my youngest son there, also, to have a look through one of the iconic buildings that this country has amongst its historical events.

But as I keep moving forward to today, as a list MP for Christchurch East I have had on many occasions people come up to me on the street talking to me about: what are they going to do with Christ Church Cathedral? I’m really pleased tonight, as the Hon Nicky Wagner said, that the Christchurch City Council agreed for the $10 million to come across to support the reinstatement of the cathedral. I’m really pleased about that. Some people wanted it; other people didn’t. Other people said, “We want our cathedral, but we don’t want to pay for it.”, but I’m pleased that the Christchurch City Council has taken it upon themselves to make that good decision for all the people of Canterbury.

As I end my contribution, I just want to say that throughout this whole process over the last six years to do with Christ Church Cathedral, there have been many emotional times faced by the population of Christchurch. Some anger, frustration—and here we are today. Everything’s come out. Satisfaction—as they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you’ll never please all of the people all of the time, but I think in this case the people that wanted to be satisfied by this outcome have been. I want to say thank you to the Environment Committee members. You’ve done an amazing job—I’m jealous I wasn’t on your select committee. I want to say thank you to the chair of the select committee, Deborah Russell. Well done to you. It is the first big bill to come through your select committee, so well done to you. I just want to say I look forward to the rest of the progress of this bill and a speedy conclusion. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I too am delighted to speak at the second reading of this bill. We are putting in place what would be—well, they are extraordinary powers, but it’s all in aid of giving momentum and giving some fast-forward impetus to this project, which is to reinstate the Christ Church Cathedral. They are extraordinary powers that we are granting, but I’m delighted that the Environment Committee has put in place many checks and balances and processes to ensure that the Orders in Council that are, ultimately, promulgated will achieve the objective and have the buy-in from, and a sufficient engagement with, the local community, because that’s what this legislation is all about. It’s about reinstating the cathedral, reinstating the heart of Christchurch, that symbol that every Cantabrian holds dear.

Whether it’s Māori or Pākehā, everyone from the South, from Christchurch, has a connection to that cathedral. I’d like to acknowledge my whanaunga Tutehounuku Korako, who reminded me that there are also our forebears that are buried in the vicinity of the cathedral, as well. So the connections to the place and to the cathedral itself do run deep, and I’m delighted also that with that engagement in the Orders in Council, I’m sure there will be participation from Ngāi Tahu. Likewise, on the technical review group there is provision for someone of the mana whenua, as well.

This is a great piece of legislation. I am delighted to support it. I won’t prolong my contribution, other than to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner and the Hon Megan Woods for ably leading this waka and ensuring that we get everyone on board. The funders will be doing their bit, and we’re doing our bit, as a Parliament, to ensure that we get the legal framework in place to really get this project underway. We’ve got a 15-year time frame—a 15-year time frame—to make this happen, to complete the—

Dr Deborah Russell: Reinstatement.

RINO TIRIKATENE: —re-establishment of the cathedral. So I’m really looking forward to the time when I can climb back up that steeple and gaze back out and see the wizard still on his ladder, casting his spells and doing his wizardly work, and be able to behold that beautiful sight that I hold so dear, taking in the beautiful surroundings of Christchurch City from its heart, the cathedral. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I’m delighted to be able to join with colleagues from both sides of the House this evening to support the second reading of this Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. Firstly, I’m delighted because, in my view, in the recovery of Christchurch this is the last big outstanding issue for the recovery of the city after the devastating earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. The second reason I’m delighted is I think if this Parliament reflects on our heritage buildings across the country, the Christ Church Cathedral would be one of our most iconic buildings. Yes, you could take Skycity in Auckland, and probably this Parliament and the Beehive here in Wellington, and then the cathedral in Christchurch. And because I’m a bit old-fashioned, actually, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a building that is of more heritage value anywhere in New Zealand than the cathedral. Thus, it’s a delight to see it now being reinstated. The third reason I am delighted is that tonight Parliament is at its best—and I do want to pay tribute to both Nicky Wagner and Megan Woods. In a Parliament where it’s so easy to fight for differences, it actually came together and did the right thing.

I remember when my colleague Nicky Wagner was appointed to the role. I had a conversation with her. I said to her, “Look, the biggie that Gerry Brownlee has not yet been able to nail is a conclusion for the cathedral, and Nicky, if you achieve nothing else in your role as Minister, in nailing a deal on the cathedral you will have done your city a great service.” I suspect, because I know how hard Nicky worked, that if she’d put a bit more time into the campaign and a little bit less into the cathedral she might still be the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central. But I still say to Nicky, “Actually, this achievement, in nailing that deal, is actually a bigger thing for the long term.”

I do want to share that compliment with Megan Woods, for the way that I know the two of you—in the way that you worked in Opposition, and didn’t play politics, to try and get us there. So to Megan Woods, the Minister, I say, “Equal compliments to you for this bill.”

My connection to the cathedral—I can still remember, as a six-year-old boy, getting on the red bus from where I grew up in Rangiora and going to this huge building of the cathedral that at that time I thought was the tallest building in the world. I remember climbing up those steps of the spire and looking over the plains of Canterbury and being inspired to be an engineer and one day, maybe, getting the opportunity to build magnificent structures of that sort.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Got a new job for you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yeah, yeah, although I have to say I’m actually very, very proud of my brothers who are in the crane business in Christchurch, who actually did some of the work in the weeks following when there were those constant aftershocks. I have to say, as an engineer, it is incredibly challenging, when you’ve got a broken building, trying to have workers work around it and protect enough of that building, installing that big steel frame, so we might even have the choice of being able to restore that building, given the severity of the aftershocks. I pay tribute to both of my brothers that were involved in the work with Smith Crane & Construction that did some of the initial work that ensured we had the choice of being able to restore the cathedral.

I remember meeting with Bishop Matthews only two weeks after the major quake in February of 2011 and pleading with her to recognise that this building was absolutely restorable. I do accept it’s been a big call for the Anglican Church in Christchurch. The really tough part is that while there is the functional aspect of the cathedral as a place of worship for the church, actually, the Christ Church Cathedral in 140 years has grown to be something considerably bigger than that. It is a tourism icon. It is a place where the people of Christchurch and Canterbury connect—those who are Anglican or not.

So for the church community, if they wanted a purely functional building for them to be able to worship in and do their church stuff, it was not necessarily the perfect building—that originally designed in the 1860s and completed in the 1890s. So I accept the difficulties that are there, but have always believed that the only right thing to do was to restore that cathedral for Christchurch.

I hold that view for a number of reasons. First, we’re a young country. We don’t actually have that many heritage buildings. I have to say I was with Gerry Brownlee when some of the passionate heritage advocates came out of the woodwork and wanted to protect a number of the buildings in Christchurch. Some of them were, as Mr Brownlee said, old dungers. Actually, the right choice was for those buildings to be demolished.

But the cathedral stands way above that. You look at the effort that countries in Europe put into restoring their great cathedrals that were demolished, to a far greater degree than the Christ Church Cathedral, after World War II. None of them regret the investment that they made in restoring those buildings, and so too the right choice has been made in respect of Christchurch.

I do want to reflect on the difficulty of pulling together the financial package to be able to afford the $100 million. I think our Parliament needs to be honest. There is no magic formula. What share should rest with the ratepayer or the taxpayer or the owners of the building? I too have heard those people that say, “Look, the Anglican Church is a wealthy organisation. It’s their damn building. It should all be their cost.” But equally so, we need to acknowledge the church has an ambition to have investment funds that enable it to continue its community, its pastoral, and its social work in the city of Christchurch and they cannot afford to meet all of this cost for themselves. Given that there is that strong tourism and there is that strong cultural connection that goes beyond the church, in my view it is absolutely proper that public money from both taxpayers and ratepayers is used.

I accept that there is a pragmatic deal that my colleague Nicky Wagner has had to lock together, between that from the ratepayer, that from the taxpayer, that from both the church and the trust, that has had to be struck. I simply praise those that have the good wisdom to stop the ongoing argument and to come to a conclusion.

There are a couple of last points I’d like to make. Yes, the reason this bill is, effectively, going to be passed unanimously actually mainly rests with the Opposition. The reality is that the most contentious bills are where the Opposition takes effect. I do say to the new members of the Government, “Please reflect on what you said about the bills that we passed in the years and months after the earthquake. If you reflect on the contributions that were made by Clayton Cosgrove as the Opposition spokesperson on the earthquake, he was absolutely torrid in his criticism of Gerry Brownlee in wanting exactly the sorts of powers that we are granting with our permission in this bill today.”

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not true. That’s not actually true.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is absolutely true, and the way in which members opposite—absolutely true, and I say, I was in Parliament and I saw the criticism by Clayton Cosgrove and others. I do say to this Parliament—I do say to this Parliament—that when we have issues of emergency, we need to come together, and I am proud to be a member of the National Party that was not only prepared to grant those emergency powers in Government but has been prepared to support them from Opposition, which is putting a large amount of trust in the Minister, because we know common sense will rule.

My very last point is this: I look at the schedule of laws that we’re having to arbitrarily override to be able to repair the cathedral, and I do pose a challenge to the Government, and that is that every time we come to issues of restoring cathedrals—and I’ve got a beautiful Nelson cathedral that is substandard and needs earthquakes strengthening—why is it that we have to undo all the bureaucratic processes that are associated with the Resource Management Act, the Building Act, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, and others? I do challenge this Parliament that we actually do need to look into some of those processes that are excessively bureaucratic so we need less of these laws to be able to do the right thing. I commend the bill to the House. It’s a credit to a great many people.

Bill read a second time.

Procedure

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the committee stage, if interrupted, and the third reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill to be set down as Government order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday, 20 December.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

In Committee

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this bill to be taken as one question for the purpose of debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to make some comments on Part 1, just to start this bill off. Basically, Part 1 deals with quite a lot of concerns that came out of the submissions, and the main theme that it deals with is the need to have a very clear purpose clause and carefully thought through definitions. This was, basically, to ensure that we got it right in terms of appropriate methodology for reinstatement. To do that, the Environment Committee made several amendments to the bill.

I’d just like to have a look at Part 1, new clause 2A; we added this in. This is to give a little bit of background to the Act. Basically, what it does is it explains that this legislation is part of the Government’s offer and that it does reflect a very long period of facilitation, negotiation, and investigations, and it references the two key reports, including the Cathedral Working Group report. It reflects on the Miriam Dean report, which was that engineering report, and then also on the Cathedral Working Group report. We thought that was particularly important, simply because this was the document that we managed to get agreement on from stakeholders around the table. This was the document that people did the negotiating in. This is how they did the thinking for the governance, the thinking for the costing, the thinking for the fund-raising, and the thinking for the future of the cathedral. People around that table had to make some kinds of trade-off, and so it was important that that was included in the bill.

We also added to the purpose of the bill. We added the purpose of the bill—and this is in clause 3(1)—to highlight the importance of this legislation and the importance of the building itself and its reinstatement, in terms of the well-being of the city of Christchurch and the people of the city of Christchurch. We said it was important because of its contribution to the cultural, the social, and the economic well-being of the city—in other words, for the people of Christchurch and for our tourist industry. We also noted its importance in terms of the regeneration of Christchurch—the fact that the building was being left to decay meant that the city centre wasn’t coming alive, wasn’t having the vitality that we want to see in the city centre. We also noted its heritage value, because, of course, that is the guiding light of this particular building. So we increased the purpose there.

We also made sure that we made it very clear what this legislation was going to do in terms of the process. What it was going to do was it was going to mean that we could expediate the process so that we could do this in a timely manner. It was also to help with the cost-effectiveness of the process, and it was to give the greatest certainty and confidence that both the owner of the cathedral and the Christchurch community needed. This was particularly important because we do want to get this work underway, we want to get it done quickly and efficiently, and we want to make sure that we can pay for it.

Further down, in clause 4, we were just very careful to make sure that the definition of “cathedral” didn’t just rely on the particular body of the church itself but also its auxiliary buildings that were directly related to the cathedral, and we made sure that we gave the definition of the lot, and then also we talked about, as I’ve said, the detail of the Cathedral Working Group report as such.

If we just go over to the next clause, which is the actual reinstatement definition, we did quite a lot of work on this, because submitters were concerned that we had the word “demolition” in there, and they were concerned that people might feel that we were going to destroy some of the building without replacing it. So we replaced that clause with “construction, reconstruction, or restoration of any part of the Cathedral”, and we also talked about the use of new materials. We did also debate whether we should include the use of new technologies, but we felt the new technologies were connected to the new materials; so that covered it.

Finally, we talked about the fact—it was sort of like belts and braces—that the activity was reinstatement if it was not full reinstatement or it didn’t get back to the original condition of the state. That was to give flexibility around the term “reinstatement”. So I think we did a good job to clarify the purpose, and I think we did a really good job to put flexibility around the definitions of those words. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to make a contribution in my area of earthquake strengthening and the powers that are provided in Part 1. I gave up my position at the Environment Committee to my colleague Nicky Wagner; I defer to her expertise on the bill and the work that she put into it. But this is an important issue.

The purpose of the bill sets out the objective to reinstate it. It talks about cost-effectiveness, and then in clause 7 we are providing for very wide powers for the Minister in the chair, Dr Megan Woods, to be able to use Orders in Council to exempt the cathedral reinstatement project from the Building Act, the Resource Management Act, heritage laws, and a number of others.

Here’s the bit I want some reassurance on, and that is in respect of the standard of earthquake strengthening that is going to be achieved. A lot of work was put in by the previous Government in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes, requiring that all buildings be upgraded to a minimum standard of 34 percent of the new-build standard, and a timetable associated with it.

Now, when we reflect on the fact that the Christ Church Cathedral has been damaged six times by earthquakes since it was built: in 1881 it was knocked around, in 1888, in 1901, in 1922, and in the main quake in September 2010, as well as the devastating, very close quake in February of 2011. A strict interpretation of this bill would say that—look, they get short of money, $100 million to do the project. Are we going to short-change, in my view unwisely, on making sure the building is as strong as possible so that this Parliament’s not going to be debating—let’s hope it’s at least a couple of hundred years, Nicky, before the great city of Christchurch faces another quake.

But the honest truth is we don’t know, so the key bit I would want to know from the Minister is: what are her intentions in respect of the Building Act exemptions that are provided for? Does she have a benchmark of percentage of new code that she would want the strengthened Christ Church Cathedral to have? It would be my view that the people of Christchurch, whether they are the ratepayers, whether they are the parishioners of the cathedral, or whether it’s the taxpayers that are making a substantial investment in this area, will want to know.

Now, I’m not picky about it. It’s not my view that Parliament should necessarily be in this area, but given the very, very wide powers that are being given to the Minister, the assurance that I would seek is that we would not consider any Order in Council that would set a standard that is less than what the Building Act requires. In fact, in my view, for a large, heritage, iconic building of this sort, we should be seeking a standard substantially above that. I think it is important that we get this on the record. The legislation does require cost-effectiveness but does not make anything specific in terms of the standard of the strengthening and the reinstatement of the cathedral.

I think we would do a disservice to all of the effort that has gone into the process if we did not clearly have in our minds some level of baseline as to the standard of strengthening that we would want for that cathedral. Six quakes in 140 years that have damaged the cathedral—I would say we’d want to guarantee at least a couple of hundred years’ future for that building with the provisions that are provided here. I’m supportive of the bill but really looking for some reassurance from the Minister about her expectations around percentage of new-build standard that we’ll want for a reinstated cathedral.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. It is a pleasure to take a call in the committee of the whole House and also an opportunity to address the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, as well.

I think it’s pretty clear for the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, from not only the first reading but now the second, to hear how much the Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report was referred to not only in the readings but in the discussions in the Environment Committee as well. We felt it important that the Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report and subsequent recommendations were embedded in the bill and the legislation.

So coming back into the House from the select committee process, we have the reference to the report in the background of the Act, under Part 1. There was discussion around including it in the preamble, but it was felt, and landed, that it was best to go in clause 2A “Background to this Act”, and it refers to the Cathedral Working Group report. It was also included under clause 4 “Interpretation”, where we talk about the report and also in the definition of “reinstatement”: “ ‘reinstatement’ includes 1 or more of the following: … any activity in relation to any part of the Cathedral that the [Cathedral Working Group] Report contemplates as being a reinstatement activity:”.

But one thing I would want to raise with the Minister, and possibly get the feedback and advice from the Minister about: there was discussion whether the Cathedral Working Group report could be referenced in other parts of the bill, and more specifically in clause 10, “Reasons for order must be published”. This is around the reasons for the Order in Council. We were working with whether the Minister, who made the recommendation, needed to include why the order is appropriate and consistent with the Cathedral Working Group report. So I’d be interested in hearing from the Minister, in her view, why that wasn’t included in clause 10, and, in fact, whether it could be included in clause 10.

Another issue that’s come up in the committee as well: we talk a lot about the physical building of the cathedral—quite rightly, because we are talking about the cathedral—but to many Cantabrians and people from Christchurch, as my learned colleague Rino Tirikatene did refer to, it’s not only the cathedral but it’s the Cathedral Square, and we’ve all got great memories of going into the square as well, and all the eccentric characters of the Wizard and, of course, the Birdman as well—we’ll never forget the Birdman.

What we did as a select committee, we had an indicative map of the cathedral area drawn up, and that is now in schedule 3. However, there was some discussion about how we ensure that we protect the interests of businesses already operating on the edges of that Cathedral Square. No doubt there are some issues as we rebuild the cathedral. In a purely logistical sense, a lot of the blocks will have to be close by. The handling of them—the double handling—will take a lot of time, so how we streamline that process.

There was discussion around some real thought of how we needed to protect the interests of business operating at the edge of that identified area. One good example of that—and I know it quite well because I did take my wife on it, but equally it’s a great North Canterbury business—Continental caterers. They run the night tram and the dinner tram car, and, of course, this cathedral area covers the tram as it circles round behind the cathedral. So it would be good to hear from the Minister as to how we can ensure that pragmatically, as this legislation goes forward, we ensure that some of the working businesses in the Cathedral Square area can be supported to ensure that their businesses are protected, as well. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you very much. I’m just intending to take a very quick call to answer some of the questions that have been put to me. First of all, to address the very important question that Dr Nick Smith raised in his contribution, and one that I think does require some explanation—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m so sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair and to report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2017

(continued on Wednesday, 20 December 2017)

Karakia

Karakia

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to start this session with a karakia.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātau, nō reira anei mātau ka whakahokia te reo whakamoemiti ki mua i tō aroaro mō ō koutou tini manaakitanga ka tukuna mai e koutou ki runga ki a mātau. Oti noa ka tono atu anō ki a koutou kia homai, piki te ora, piki te kaha, piki te māramatanga me te rangimārie, kia manaakitia hoki mātau i roto i ā mātau kōrerorero i tēnei ata i roto i te tika me te pono. Ka tuku whakamoemiti atu ki a koutou mō ō koutou manaakitanga kia tae pai ai a Ngāti Tūwharetoa me ngā hapū o rohe o Te Wairoa ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ata. Nō reira, ko koutou nei hoki te timatanga me te whakaotinga mai, i a mātau e tūmanako atu nei i roto i ō koutou korōriatanga. Mā Te Māngai e tautoko mai āianei, āke nei. Ae.

[Let peace descend upon us as we return the expression of thanks before your presence for your guidance that you have bestowed upon us. We also ask that you give us increased health, strength, enlightenment, and peace, and that we may be true and righteous in our discussions this morning. We give thanks to you for your care that Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the subtribes of Te Wairoa area may arrive safely to Parliament this morning. Therefore, you are the beginning and end of our hopes in your glorious kingdom. May the Divine Mouthpiece confirm this prayer now and for ever. Yes.]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the benefit of visitors, unusually, the House is still in Tuesday. Normally, we would start a session with a prayer. Because we started Tuesday’s session with a prayer, that’s not the normal run of events, so thank you very much.

Bills

Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

I’d like to extend a warm welcome to members of Ngāti Tūwharetoa who have travelled to be here today to attend this first reading of their settlement bill. Nau mai, haere mai. I want to begin by paying tribute to Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s ariki, Sir Tumu te Heuheu, and his forebears of Te Whare o Te Heuheu. Sir Tumu and seven generations of paramount chiefs before him have worked unflaggingly as advocates for the advancement of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa people. I also want to acknowledge all the people who have contributed to this settlement and who have worked for so many years to hold the Crown to account for those acts and omissions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi. Sadly, many of them have passed on and are not here to bear witness to this milestone. Today, let us pay tribute to, and celebrate the dedication of, those individuals.

It is important to also acknowledge the unflagging determination of the members of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa negotiation team throughout the negotiations. The Hon Sir Michael Cullen has been the lead negotiator for the Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum since 2010 and has worked diligently for settlement. His team has included George Asher, Eru George, Te Ngaehe Wanikau, and Gina Rangi as well, as well as Hinemoa Wanikau, Morgan te Heuheu, Merehira Savage, Jacqueline Iorangi, and Karen Feint in crucial supporting roles. Together they have worked long days and many nights negotiating settlement redress with the Crown and made many personal sacrifices in order to build a comprehensive redress package for Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, as well. I also acknowledge the Crown negotiation team led by chief Crown negotiator John Isles with support from the Office of Treaty Settlements, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry for the Environment.

The first reading of a settlement bill is, traditionally, an opportunity to reflect upon an iwi’s relationship with the Crown. I would like to highlight some of the key moments in this history to provide context for this bill. The New Zealand Wars and early Crown purchasing marked the beginning of widespread disruption to the social, political, and economic structures of Ngāti Tūwharetoa life. Later, the introduction of native land laws in the 1860s further contributed to the alienation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s lands by undermining their tribal control, and much of this land today forms large portions of the public conservation estate. In the 1880s, the Crown sought to establish a national park around Tongariro maunga. In 1887, Horonuku te Heuheu Tūkino IV made a tuku of the three volcanic peaks to the Crown to protect and preserve the mountains for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, other iwi, and all New Zealanders. Although Te Ariki intended to enter into a partnership with the Queen, legal ownership of the mountain peaks was vested solely in the Crown, and this began a process whereby Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s authority over the taonga and the Tongariro National Park has been greatly reduced.

Throughout the 20th century, the Crown’s prolonged imposition of orders against private alienation of lands owned by Ngāti Tūwharetoa locked up much of Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s land and resources, particularly indigenous timber, and precluded the iwi from developing these assets. Since the 1870s, the Crown has taken Ngāti Tūwharetoa land for a variety of public works, many of which have disrupted or uprooted whānau and communities. Many of these public works projects have been of considerable benefit to the people of New Zealand but have polluted, destroyed, or irreparably harmed many of the natural resources within Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s rohe. Economic marginalisation, unemployment, and underdevelopment have also contributed to the extensive migration of Ngāti Tūwharetoa peoples as they have left their rohe to seek opportunities elsewhere.

This long history of sacrifice and trauma provided a clear rationale for settlement negotiations with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Ngāti Tūwharetoa had already reached several partial settlements and agreements with the Crown on claims not included in the comprehensive settlement. These include the Ngāti Tūrangitukua claims settlement in 1999, the Lake Taupō or Taupō Moana deed in 2007, the central North Island forests land settlement in 2008, the Waikato River co-management deed in 2010, and the Te Awa Tupua settlement in 2016.

Although Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s journey to the comprehensive settlement of their historical grievances began in 2003 with the establishment of the Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum, it wasn’t until December 2013 that Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the Crown signed a high-level agreement. In March 2015, they signed an agreement in principle and then their deed of settlement in July this year. The redress included in this settlement seeks to provide Ngāti Tūwharetoa with greater influence over the management of a number of historically and culturally significant sites and to facilitate the iwi’s collaboration and partnership with the Taupō community on projects that will build prosperity for the people of the Taupō region. This settlement includes the return of 32 sites to Ngāti Tūwharetoa, including properties at Five Mile Bay, Huka Falls, Parakiri, Taurewa farm, and the Tongariro National Trout Centre. It also brokers a range of new relationships with agencies, establishes a new statutory board, Te Kōpua Kanapanapa, which will provide Ngāti Tūwharetoa with a mechanism to exercise mana and kaitiakitanga over the Taupō catchment in partnership with the local authorities, and establishes a new joint trust to manage and administer the Tongariro National Trout Centre.

Although no settlement could ever fully compensate Ngāti Tūwharetoa for the loss and the prejudice they have suffered, the introduction of this bill heralds our entry into a renewed relationship that will rejuvenate the cultural, social, and economic mana of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Ā, tēnā koutou ngā puāwaitaka a ō tātou mātua tīpuna. Anei rā te mihi hōhonu ki ngā uri o Te Arawa waka, ka huri te titiro ki ngā tapuwae o Ngātoroirangi e takatakahia e ō koutou whenua. Ngā uri o Tūwharetoa i Te Aupōuri, tū mai, tū mai, tū mai koutou. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou Tūwharetoa iwi e tae mai ki Te Upoko o Te Ika ki te tautoko te kaupapa nei, te muru o te hara nā te Kāwanataka i te mahia. Nō reira, a tēnei te mihi ki a koe e te ariki rakatira e Tā Tumu. Nō reira, ka nunui te mihi e mauria mai, e whakaako ki te kaupapa e nunui, e te kaupapa o te Tūwharetoa i te pire. Nō reira, kei a mātou ngā mema o Te Pāremata e mihi nei, e tangi nei ki a koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira, koutou e tūmanakohia ake nei huri noa i Te Whare Mīere. Nei te mihi ki te mema katoa, nō reira e mihi atu, e mihi atu, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you, the descendants of our ancestors. I hereby greet you, the descendants of the Te Arawa canoe, and I gaze upon the footsteps of Ngātoroirangi, who tramped throughout your lands. The descendants of Tūwharetoa i Te Aupōuri, stand tall, stand tall, stand tall. I greet you all, the people of Tūwharetoa who have come to Wellington to support this matter, to acknowledge the wrongs committed by the Government. I also greet you, the paramount chief Sir Tumu. I appreciate greatly the learning that has been acquired through this important matter, the Tūwharetoa bill. So we the members of Parliament greet you all, the great treasures who have gathered in the Beehive, as we hoped for, and we also mourn your losses. I greet all the members, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

I want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the 52nd Parliament, the Hon Andrew Little, and wish him well in his new mahi. I also want to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. We see a lot of the work that has been done on this important take today—the former Minister had a lot to do with what we are seeing here.

To give this settlement some context, Tūwharetoa is the fifth-largest iwi in the country, with approximately around 36,000 members. The area of interest is centred on Lake Taupō and the Central Plateau. It covers much of the central North Island and the Te Arawa regions. There are also a number of overlapping groups that are part of this settlement.

The historical claims of Tūwharetoa against the Crown relate to the establishment of the Tongariro National Park, the New Zealand Land Wars, land alienations through native land laws, Crown purchasing tactics and public works takings, the loss of access to and control over geothermal resources, water rights, and fishing rights, and environmental issues, especially concerning Lake Taupō.

One cannot begin to describe the profound impact the actions of the Crown have had on the proud people of Tūwharetoa. The Crown has admitted that every generation of Tūwharetoa has been adversely affected by the Government’s failure to uphold its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi since 1840. This is a major acknowledgment of how unjustly the Crown acted.

It is never easy to stand as a representative of the Crown to acknowledge the past wrongs of this House against any group of New Zealanders, let alone Māori. And yet, as a member of Parliament, I am as culpable today as those who stood in the same House to make laws to dispossess Tūwharetoa of their land a little over 150 years ago. These laws I refer to include establishing and imposing the Native Land Court on Tūwharetoa without their consultation or agreement, allowing the courts to begin the process of alienating Māori land held in common through individualisation of title, and imposing the 10-owner rule upon the hapū of Tūwharetoa, to the detriment of a multitude of iwi members at that time.

Unfortunately, it does not stop there. The deliberate warfare waged by the Crown upon the Kīngitanga in Waikato-Tainui left Tūwharetoa hapū with little option but to support their relations in the North. Going to war against colonial troops to assist their northern relations resulted in very harsh recrimination by systematically dispossessing Tūwharetoa of their lands through major raupatu.

But, arguably, the greatest slight to Tūwharetoa was the undermining of the tuku, or the transfer, that their tipuna Horonuku te Heuheu Tūkino IV made when gifting their rakatira mauka, including their tipua mauka Tongariro, to the Crown. The gift was given in humility and in love for all the people of Aotearoa. It was a gift designed to preserve the beauty of these mauka and the surrounding whenua for all New Zealanders to enjoy. It was this gift that created the Tongariro National Park.

This gift is all the more significant as it was given after Tūwharetoa had suffered the indignities of land confiscation for supporting their Waikato-Tainui relations, having their tīpuna unjustly imprisoned on Wharekauri without trial, in very, very harsh conditions, and having suffered the indignities of land alienation through the Native Land Court. But the iwi, through te Heuheu, still took the first step to repair a relationship that was broken by the Crown through these injustices.

How did the Crown respond to this extraordinary and extremely generous gift to the country, a gift the Crown knew was intended to honour the Treaty of Waitangi by enabling true partnership, using a unique collaborative model? Again, unfortunately, by systematically and consciously diluting the role of Tūwharetoa in the administration of the Tongariro National Park; by deliberately appointing a majority of non-Māori members to the national park board; and by intentionally extinguishing Tūreiti te Heuheu Tūkino V’s trusteeship on the board.

There are many ways that we are the embodiment of the saying, “The sins of the father are revisited upon the son.” That being said, the son now has the opportunity, along with all other members of this House, to right a wrong committed in our collective name over a century and a half ago, and I’m proud to see the members of this House on both sides owning our collective wrongdoing and endeavouring to make it right with the people of Tūwharetoa.

The aspects of redress include cultural funds totalling approximately $3.95 million and financial redress of $25 million. The Crown will also begin cultural redress negotiations over the Tongariro National Park with Tūwharetoa and other iwi and hapū with interests in this park within the next 12 months.

As with all other Treaty settlements, the Tūwharetoa settlement is small relative to the loss suffered by them, but it is a settlement, and, once again, Tūwharetoa have been gracious to the people of New Zealand by accepting cents in the dollar owing to them. All of New Zealand should be grateful to Tūwharetoa for once again putting aside its rightful sense of injustice, loss, and hurt to accept a settlement that does not, and never could, reflect the true loss to this iwi.

I want to convey my true gratitude to Tūwharetoa for the ongoing patience and unfathomable aroha that they have shown in all these years of loss that they have suffered. Tūwharetoa humility and manaaki to the whole country stand as a testament to the mana of this truly great and respected iwi, and for that reason I commend this bill to the House. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kororia, hareruia ki a Ihowa o ngā mano, matua, tama, wairua tapu me ngā anahera pono, me te māngai anō hei tautoko mai āia nei, ake nei, āe. Te maunga Tongariro ka tārehu, e mihi ana ki te rangi, e mihi ana ki te whenua, e mihi ana ki ngā tāngata. Tū winiwini, tū wanawana kia puta ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. Kia hī ake ana te atākura, he tio, he huka, he hauhu. A, tihewa mauri ora!

Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Te whare o Te Heuheu, te ariki, e Tumu, tēnā koe. Ngā hapū maha, tēnā koutou. Nō koutou tēnei rā, he rā nui, he rā whakahirahira. Kei te tū ahau ki te tū tautoko ki te rīti o tēnei pire. Āe, he rā nui, he rā whakahirahira. He mihi atu ki a rātau kua whetūrangitia, nā rātau i hāpai nei ngā mahi i tēnei rā, te whakatutuki i a rātau ngā wawata i a rātau. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātau te hunga mate ki a rātou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, tātau te hunga ora ki a tātau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Glory, honour, and hallelujah to Jehovah, lord of the many hosts, the father, the son, sacred spirit, the devout angels, and the mouthpiece as my support, now and forever, yes indeed. Tongariro mountain is covered by cloud; greetings to the sky, greetings to the land, and greetings to the people. Stand in awe and fear and move from the world of darkness into the world of light. Cease the winds from the west, cease the winds from the south. It will be icy cold inland, and icy cold on the shore. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air. A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day. Alas, it is life!

Greetings, Tūwharetoa. Welcome to Parliament and those assembled here. To the house of Te Heuheu, the paramount chief Tumu, I greet you. And the many hapū, I greet you all. This is your day, a significant day. I stand here in support of the reading of this bill. Yes, it is a great day, a significant day. I acknowledge those that have departed, those who carried the mantle, and that is why we are here today, to achieve their aspirations. The lines are joined, the dead have been connected. The lines are joined, we the living have been connected, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

I am very proud and humbled to be able to speak at the first reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. I too would like to add my warm welcome to all of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and in particular Te Ariki Tumu, who have travelled all this way for this historic occasion. All first readings of claims settlement bills are very historic occasions, and it certainly is a great honour to be able to speak and pay acknowledgment to you—to our manuhiri tūārangi—and also to address the details that are embodied in this bill, which so much work has gone into. I would like to acknowledge the hapū forum for all of the work that they’ve done that has led up to this point. We are just one step in the process, but this is a very important step that we are doing today.

I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who, I know, was intimately involved in this settlement, and all the work that he achieved under the 51st Parliament, and prior, with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Likewise, I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little, who has now taken over the baton and is leading the work in this very area of completing these Treaty settlements, but also moving forward all of the Crown - iwi Māori relationships that we have across Aotearoa.

This is a very significant bill. As has been mentioned, Ngāti Tūwharetoa is a large iwi, the fifth-largest iwi in Aotearoa. As I like to mention in my contributions on these historic occasions, to understand Māori history is to understand whakapapa. All of those histories are intertwined and embodied in these settlements. In particular, I always like to reflect on the historical account and the acknowledgments and the apology that the Crown has set out in this piece of legislation. The same is true—we are canvassing a lot of history, a lot of mamae, that has been inflicted upon generations of the hapū, the iwi, of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It goes right back to pre-1860 days and the desire by the new settler Governments back in those days to devour lands and resources in Aotearoa, and the conflicts that broke out, and the hard decisions that had to be made by hapū, and iwi, and chiefs, who were, in many cases, drawn into conflicts and had to make hard decisions for their people. Those decisions were, no doubt, fallen foul on the chiefs of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. So many of the names that come up in these settlements we have heard in many other settlements. The battles that take place, and the loss of the chiefs, in particular at Ōrākau, at Ōmarunui, at Te Pōrere, chiefs like Te Rangi Tāhau and Maniapoto, and the loss that has been inflicted upon the hapū and the descendants of those great chiefs—it cannot be overstated how deep that runs. So I am pleased that we are able to acknowledge in these bills the historical account of the loss.

And it didn’t stop in the 1860s. It went on and on. The skulduggery that the Crown got up to in its acquisition of land and resources—the decisions that were made to the detriment of Ngāti Tūwharetoa—are all spelt out in the bill. I too would like to acknowledge—as I’ve said, to understand our history is to understand Māori whakapapa. To have Te Ariki Tumu te Heuheu here embodies all what Ngāti Tūwharetoa is—the descent from their ariki—and to have him here to grace this occasion is truly overwhelming, because I know how significant this occasion is to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. So Ngāti Tūwharetoa has been through a lot. I’ve only just gone through the 1860s. I didn’t even get to their great tūpuna that were swept aside and cast over to the Chatham Islands, that joined many others. There were no Māori rebels in those days; they were Māori patriots, and there are many great stories that will be told about those great patriots that ended up in places like the Chatham Islands.

But to return to this bill, I think what sums this bill up best for me is the spirit of gratitude that we must have for Ngāti Tūwharetoa in their generosity—the generosity that they have bestowed on Aotearoa, our nation, through the development of resources: hydroelectric schemes, geothermal, forestry, national parks. So much has been undertaken in their tribal ancestral lands to the benefit of our country, but, alas, to the detriment of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. This bill and this settlement are a means by which we can acknowledge that, offer some means of consideration for that, but it goes nowhere to even recovering one little splinter of the loss that has been inflicted on this great iwi. But, alas, we are here, and this is a great achievement for Ngāti Tūwharetoa. So, just in concluding, I am looking forward to working as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee to examine closely this bill, to work closely with my colleagues, and to hear submitters on this very important bill. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Can I too begin by acknowledging Sir Tumu te Heuheu, who is in the House today. Over my years as Minister in charge of Treaty negotiations, he was the embodiment of the gentlemanly approach to negotiations. What he said, he meant, and one could always rely on his word. It is great to have him in the House today, along with other members of Tūwharetoa.

Can I also acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, the MP for Taupō. She sent me a text just before the House started. She’s in hospital because her father is unwell, but she wanted to say how much she was hoping to be here today, and to send her very best wishes to the good people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I acknowledge Sir Michael Cullen, who is in the Chamber. I thank him and Gina Rangi and George Asher and the other members of the Tūwharetoa negotiating team—tough, but principled—and I think they have achieved a great settlement for the iwi.

I acknowledge the chief Crown negotiator John Isles for all his good work. Of course, John’s greatest claim to fame is not the Ngāti Tūwharetoa settlement, but it’s the fact that he—and he alone—witnessed my hole in one at Heretaunga a couple of years ago. He’s also witnessed quite a few treble bogeys over the years. It pains him to have to acknowledge to people that I actually did that while he was stuck in a bunker. But he’s a good fellow, who has done great work for the Crown over the years, and I acknowledge him. He’s in the final stages of finishing his house in the land of Ngāpuhi, and so he’s unable to be here today.

I acknowledge my successor, Andrew Little. Some of my colleagues say I’ve been far too nice about him as we’ve transitioned from one administration to the other, but I think people know that my greatest failing is that I am generous and kind. So I do acknowledge him and wish him all the best. I simply say to Mr Little that Tūwharetoa are fantastic to deal with, and—please, I hope Mr Henare doesn’t take this personally—all the very best with Ngāpuhi.

I think it’s very important to analyse just what this claim is all about, because there are a number of really nasty, mean-spirited people out there who say, “Oh, Tūwharetoa are always coming back for more.” But the reality of the matter is that unlike some settlements, where you deal with all issues at once, there has been a more episodic approach to Treaty settlements with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and it’s a perfectly legitimate approach that has been taken. Because of where they are positioned in the central North Island, there are, inevitably, overlaps—so, for example, the Waikato River settlement. Ngāti Tūwharetoa needed to be brought into the Waikato River arrangements after Nanaia Mahuta’s iwi, Tainui, began that process, and, of course, Raukawa and Te Arawa and others have also been brought in. There was the forests agreement, which was negotiated by Sir Michael Cullen in the closing stages of the Clark administration, and Ngāti Tūwharetoa were also involved in that.

Then, of course, there was the 2007 agreement that was negotiated by Mark Burton over Tauranga—not Tauranga Moana, please; that’s another one that I’m sure Andrew’s going to enjoy dealing with—Taupō Moana, over the waters of Lake Taupō. That didn’t give rise to legislation, but it’s very much an enforceable agreement—as certain people are going to find out in the next little period—because that gave rise to a little bit of strife before the election. The leader of New Zealand First was making all sorts of his usual volcanic and explosive comments, saying that I’d given away the waters of Lake Taupō to Ngāti Tūwharetoa. He was making all those sorts of allegations, all of which—as is customary with him—were false. A number of the commercial operators were very concerned about those arrangements. I met with them and I offered to arrange a mediation, but, unfortunately, many of the things that I said to them, which I thought were in confidence and were for the purposes of creating a peaceful outcome, were leaked to either Mr Peters or New Zealand fishing, and so it’s on its way to the High Court and all the very best to them.

There will be other settlements that will need to be concluded. My wonderful colleague John Wood has been very instrumental in negotiating and talking to people about the national park and about settlement of the maunga. Those issues are going to have to be dealt with over the next few years, and that is the way it should be.

Can I suggest to those who are cynical about Treaty settlements that they should look at the history of this claim. As Mr Tirikatene has said, it’s clearly set out in the historical account, which is drawn out of the deed, and then the apology that follows. Ngāti Tūwharetoa didn’t necessarily suffer raupatu, but it has had a very rough ride through New Zealand history, because—as Mr Tirikatene observed—of that insatiable desire on the part of the Crown for land. The iwi greeted the new settlers of our land in the years following 1840 and, basically, they were let down. That’s what the settlement’s all about, and also when it comes to the way in which lakes and rivers have been treated. On the western side of the island, we’ve been negotiating with the iwi there, and it’s very instructive to actually see what the Tongariro power development actually did to rivers and the effect it had on the iwi of the central North Island. I’ll never forget a site visit to certain rivers. Basically, they vanish before your eyes and all that water is turned from the south to the north, and irreparable harm has been caused to the environment up there that there needs to be redress for.

So these are the sorts of issues that have arisen over the years with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. That is why there need to be these settlements and why I was so pleased to be the Minister who signed the deed of settlement with my dear friend Sir Tumu earlier this year, and the legislation is now before the House.

I have a couple of concluding comments. Part of the settlement marries, as it were, the settlement provisions into other settlements—so, for example, I refer honourable members to clauses 184 and 185. Some years ago, in the Ngāti Whare settlement, we set up the Rangitaiki River Forum. Ngāti Tūwharetoa becomes a member of that forum, which is, as the term suggests, designed to improve the quality of the Rangitaiki River—which, I think, flows through the Deputy Speaker’s electorate and probably four other electorates as well—and then there’s also the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, where there is, admittedly, a lesser interest than other Hawke’s Bay iwi, but none the less Ngāti Tūwharetoa needs to be involved in that settlement as well.

So I very much look forward to the legislation going to the Māori Affairs Committee, which Mr Tirikatene is going to be chairing. I look forward to this bill returning to the House, and I look forward to the negotiation and resolution of the other issues that I have referred to.

There’s one issue that does need to be addressed in the future—and the iwi are alert to it—and that is the fact that the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board is holding some settlement assets from other settlements, as indeed is another body holding assets arising from the forestry settlement. At some stage in the future, there will need to be a rationalisation of settlement bodies, but it seemed sensible to say that those are issues the iwi can work through over the next few years in its own way and in its own time, and I didn’t feel the need to shoehorn them into a particular settlement with one post-settlement governance entity. I think that that’s where, probably, it should end up in the fullness of time, but I’m sure that they’ll be able to work through those issues over the next few years.

So, with those remarks, I join with other honourable members in commending the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Taupō-nui-a-Tia, Tongariro maunga, Tūwharetoa i Te Aupōuri Tupuna, Te Heuheu Tangata, ko koutou mai i te whare tātai i te puku o te motu kua tau nei ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata, nau mai, piki mai, kua tau mai. Waiho mā tēnei reo Māori o tātou hei tuku kupu māku i roto i te huringa o ngā mahara ki te hunga kua whetūrangitia. E kara, e Tumu, hoki ana ōku hakaaro ki tō pāpā, ki a Te Hepi. I te wā kāhore anō wēnei take Tiriti i waenga tonu i ngā kokorutanga o Te Kāwanatanga kia whai matomato i reira tō matua e werowero ana. Me hoki noki ōku hakaaro ki ō koutou mātua, ngā ingoa i whakahuahuangia ai nōku i te tamariki pēnā i a Pat Rua. Me te wā noki i a mātou e tamariki ana i te kura i Tīpene, ko wai te hunga nāna mātou i whakatau ki waenga tonu i a koutou, ko Taxi, ko Nick Wall. Nā reira, i reira i roto i ēnei whakawhitiwhitinga o tātou kei wareware tātou ki te hunga kua wheturangitia. Nā rātou i pupuru i te mauri mō ēnei o ō tātou tō mahi tō rātou wā, ka heke mai ki a koutou ko tō iwi e Tumu. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Nōku i te kura i Tīpene he mea ako mātou ki tētahi waiata, he waiata i waiatangia nuingia ai e mātou i ō mātou haerenga i waenga tonu i te motu. Nā, me whakamomori au kia hoki mai ētahi rārangi ki a au, engari e kara e Tumu, pēnei rā taku mahara:

Ka hoki au ki taku whenua tupu

Ki te wai koropupū i heria mai

I Hawaiki rā anō e Ngātoroirangi

E ōna tūāhine a Te Pupu, a Te Hoata

E hū mai rā a Tongariro ka mahana taku kiri e

Tūwharetoa, kia mahana te kiri ā-tangata, ā-hapū, ā-iwi i tēnei rā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Taupō-nui-a-Tia, the mountain Tongariro, the ancestor Tūwharetoa i Te Aupōuri, all of you from the house of the lineage of the belly of the fish who have arrived here in Parliament, welcome, welcome, welcome. I will let our Māori language convey my words to those who have departed. My dear Tumu, my thoughts return to your father Hepi. Before these Treaty issues had progressed in Government such as they are, your father would be there challenging. My thoughts return to your elders, names that were spoken of when I was young, such as Pat Rua. And to the time when we were young at St Stephen’s, who was it that welcomed us amongst you? It was Taxi, Nick Wall. So, as we discuss let us not forget those who have passed on. It was they who held the mantle of our work in their time, down to your people today, Tumu. So I greet you, greet you, greet you all.

When I was at school at St Stephen’s we were taught a song, and it was a song we would sing a lot as we travelled the country. Now, I must desperately hope that some words return to me. As I recall it went like this:

But now I return to my native land

To the boiling pools there, which were brought

From distant Hawaiki by Ngātoroirangi

And his sisters Te Pupu and Te Hoata

To fume up there on Tongariro, giving warmth to my skin

Tūwharetoa, let there be warmth on the skin of the people, the hapū, and the tribe today, greetings to us all.]

I stand to support the remarks and indeed the sentiments expressed by my colleagues about this particular iwi occupying a special place in the firmament of Māori political cultural history. This is not just a settlement about resources; this is an affirmation and a reminder to us as Māori parliamentarians of the role that the ancestors of this tribe have played over the years in not only contributing to the Kīngitanga but keeping alive the ancient Polynesian kaupapa of Te Ariki.

So, in our Māori language, I acknowledge Te Ariki o Tūwharetoa. I acknowledge the hapū that make up Tūwharetoa, and I also affirm what the former Minister said: “The way for greatness as you and I as Māori does not lie in atomisation; it lies in building a sense of nationhood amongst us as Māori, so that we are capable of steering the affairs of this nation, and it never loses sight of the anchorage which we as indigenous tangata whenua offer to Aotearoa.”

So this settlement, in my view, is regarded in that fashion. There will always be concerns over the implementation of the settlement, and it behoves both local government leadership and tribal leadership to ensure, as decisions are made and steps taken to improve catchment and environment, that the leaders take all of the people with them. When all of the people are taken forward, then, over time, there is an acceptance that there is a slightly different way, an improved way, of doing things.

The kaupapa of Te Kōpua Kānapanapa, quite apart from being an extraordinarily beautiful name—it’s a pity that the name was taken by you; it could have made Sonny Tau and the Ngāpuhi look quite clever. But the actual word is an ancient Māori word, and indeed in the North we have a similar expression: Te Au Kānapanapa, being the current that brought our ancestor Kupe to Aotearoa.

But that body is an innovation. That body comprises the leadership of the tangata whenua and local government. These bodies cannot function and cannot succeed unless they capture the imagination and enjoy the mandate of the broader community, because their decisions will pertain to people who hold not only iwi rights but private property rights.

So we know that these things can easily become snagged with unnecessary bureaucracy, extended decision-making, and that in itself can frustrate the economic decisions. But given that this tribe has aspirations—many of them already fulfilled—that they will be an economic powerhouse in this part of Aotearoa and the overarching country, I think I reflect the concerns of all of us: please, when these bills are passed, I say to us, as members of the House, that we must ensure that the processes do not suffer as a consequence of our innovation and our desire to embrace tangata whenua perspectives. But those issues, no doubt, will be teased through in relation to the select committee process.

So, to Mr Chris Finlayson, who may have offended against the Standing Orders today by describing himself as very charitable, kind, and humorous, I acknowledge the mahi that he’s done, and I acknowledge Andrew Little. As he goes forth to deal with the Ngāpuhi nui tonu, he will have no shortage of advice, both up there and here. But he should bear in mind that the old term for Ngāpuhi is Ngāpuhi Kōhao Rau [Ngāpuhi of a hundred holes], and please, Andrew Little, do not get in the way of the firing line, because “Ngāpuhi Kōhao Rau” tends to mean “Ngāpuhi of a hundred muskets”.

So, Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou. Kua tutuki te kaupapa i moemoengia ai i tōna wā, kātahi ka whakatutukitia i roto i tēnei rā, ka haria ki te komiti uiui, kātahi ka wherawherahia ai ngā wāhanga o te pire nei ka haria mai, ka pīkaua mai e ngā kaitono, ngā kaituhituhi ō rātou māharahara, otira e pai ana. Koia tēnā te huarahi i whakaritea hei haerenga mō ngā kaupapa pēnei.

Nā reira, e Tumu, koutou katoa me ō koutou kaitohutohu pēnei me te ruānuku a Dr Cullen kua tatū mai i tēnei ra, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou. Hoki atu ki Taupō meinga atu ki a rātou e mōhio ana te Tararā nei ki te waiata “Ka Eke ki Wairaka”. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[So, I acknowledge you, Tūwharetoa. This matter that you dreamed about in the past has been realised, has reached this stage today. It will progress to the select committee where the provisions of the bill will be discussed, and the submitters and writers can outline their concerns, as appropriate. That is the process set down for these types of matters.

So, Tumu, and all of you, including your advisors such as the sage Dr Cullen, who have come here today, greetings to you all and all of us. Return to Taupō and tell them that this Dalmatian knows the song “Ka Eke ki Wairaka”. Greetings to us all.]

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, te Arikinui o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Tā Tumu Te Heuheu, tēnā koe, nau mai haere mai. Ki ngā whānau whānui o te iwi Ngāti Tūwharetoa, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai haere mai ki Te Pāremata ki runga i te rā whakahirahira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings, greetings to the paramount chief of Tūwharetoa, Sir Tumu te Heuheu, welcome. To the families of the Tūwharetoa tribe, I greet you and welcome you to Parliament for this special day.]

I’m honoured to stand to make a small contribution to the first reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. Before I start my contribution, I just want to acknowledge some people. I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson, whom I believe will go down in the history of many iwi and hapū kōrero as the most effective, no-nonsense Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that any Government has seen over the many years that this Government has stood here. I want to acknowledge the new Minister, the Hon Andrew Little. I think that the shoes that have been left behind for you are very big, and it’s going to take a wee while, I’d say, before you actually ever get to fit them, but I wish you all the best. I really look forward to working inside the Māori Affairs Committee as we work through these bills.

Many of the contributions today have already touched on the historical events that happened with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and each time I stand here in this House, after reading the information that we get and listening to the kōrero that I get to hear at a number of hui—I do sit here humbled that so many of our tūpuna have been such courageous fighters, and that for all of us that are in this House and throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, we’re very lucky to actually be here. It has been our tūpuna that have fought vigorously for us to survive.

And so I’m very humbled, again, to stand here on another Treaty settlement bill, one of our biggest and most important for me—my auntie married into Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I just want to say that this is a bill that I look forward to listening to the contributions on from the many submitters, and I would dare to say that there will be many submitters for this bill. I do look forward to actually hearing their stories and to making sure that the Crown does do its duty to redress all of the ills that it caused for Ngāti Tūwharetoa tūpuna and whānau.

Coming back to the select committee, because I came off the select committee at the beginning of the year and I’m pleased to be back with it, I want to say to Rino, the chair, that I look forward to your chairmanship for the rest of this term. I think that we will do a number of great things for iwi, and under your chairmanship I know that we will fight to get as much as we can for our people.

So, without any further ado, I just want to say that I pay tribute to you all up there in the gallery, for all of you coming here today. Some of you would have woken early in the morning. I pay tribute to your tūpuna. To your mokopuna yet to come and that are here already, I think that they will have an amazing piece of history and legacy that you have pulled together today and into the future, and I can see that the treasures that you already have will actually grow exponentially once this process is finished. So, without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o tēnei Whare, huri noa ki a tātou katoa, ōku hoa kaimahi. Te tuatahi nei rā taku mihi maioha, taku mihi aroha ki a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, nau mai ki tēnei Whare, ki ō Whare o te Whare Pāremata. He mihi aroha tēnei ki ō maunga, ngā maunga teitei, he mihi kau ana tēnei ki ngā moana, ki ngā awa, nei rā te tuku mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā hirahira. He mihi anō ki a koutou ngā mokopuna, ngā tamariki, ngā whānau, ngā kaimahi o tēnei pire i whāriki nei i mua i a tātau katoa: nau mai haramai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa. Anō hoki, he mihi ki a koe e te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu me te mana me te aroha o ō koutou e tū ana kei muri i a koe. Tēnā tātau katoa.

[Greetings to the Deputy Speaker, and to us all, and to my colleagues. Firstly, I give a warm and loving greeting to you the descendants of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, welcome to this House, Parliament. I greet your mountains, your lofty mountains, and also the lakes and rivers. I greet you all who have come here on this special day. I also acknowledge the grandchildren, children, families, and those who worked on the bill before us: welcome, welcome, greetings to us all. And also, I greet you the paramount chief Sir Tumu Heuheu and the mana and love of all of those that support you. Greetings to you all.]

I’m going to start, as have many of my colleagues in this House, by acknowledging the incredible generosity of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in arriving at this settlement before us—the generosity in the face of what cannot be overstated: in the face of the Crown’s aggression on a number of levels, including physically, including economically and culturally, including violently, and definitely including spiritually. It had aggressive hunger for what Ngāti Tūwharetoa had kaitiaki responsibilities over, including Tāupo Moana, including te maunga, including the cultural connections to all of the whenua and the incredible benefits that all of Aotearoa have gained from the time—and ongoing—that those connections were broken and those responsibilities and kaitiaki responsibilities were broken by the violent acts of the Crown.

On that note, I start my contribution by deeply acknowledging that generosity in light of the Crown breach of what was a Tiriti agreement that we were to have a good faith partnership and that the Crown was to always uphold the mana motuhake of hapū and iwi of Aotearoa.

Te Tiriti, in its essence, supports hupūtanga, and the Green Party has always made it very clear that we want to review the entire settlement process, particularly in terms of its tendency to want to deal with large natural groupings, a particular part of the settlement process that continues to wedge hapū, that continues to undermine hapū, and that continues to create all sorts of raruraru around the motu. I acknowledge all of the raru that Tūwharetoa have faced on this particular matter and that, also, Tūwharetoa have remained open to the communications that continue to need to happen along the settlement process, which pits hapū against each other.

I am going to focus quite deeply on the historical account. I acknowledge that while this is the first meeting that this House is having with your settlement legislation, that for many years, and alongside all sorts of hard work and losses, the kōrero for this negotiated settlement has taken place since long before today. I always want to deeply understand at least the historical account that is presented to us in the bill, which, in my opinion, I welcome and think these are one of the most important parts of the legislation, but I know that they in no way capture all the nuances and all the impacts that the historical journeys have had on Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

In saying that, I do appreciate what iwi are able to have put into the records—into the written records—and into this House as a historical account. I noted that, before 1860, of course Ngāti Tūwharetoa actively opposed the Crown’s aggressive purchasing programme and that, in those actions of actively opposing the Crown’s grab of land, they set themselves up as a target. This happened around the motu. Having set themselves up as a target of the Crown by stubbornly and fantastically wanting to protect their kaitiaki and whakapapa links to their whenua, alongside the later invasion of Crown forces into the Waikato rohe, that brought upon Tūwharetoa a series of aggressive actions and breaches by the Crown of Te Tiriti agreement. So I want to acknowledge that, from the get-go, Ngāti Tūwharetoa have made it very clear that they weren’t going to have a bar of the land negotiations.

It also happened that native land laws were then put in place—all the different mechanisms and tools were used by the Crown to try to usurp and undermine the whakapapa kaitiaki responsibilities that Ngāti Tūwharetoa had over their whenua and their land holdings, and, absolutely, legislation was a part of that mechanism and that strategy, particularly the mechanism of removing collective title into individual title. That meant that, by 1900, the alienation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa had become incredibly significant and damaging and that today, much of this—say, 430,000 acres of Ngāti Tūwharetoa—had been acquired by the Crown, and that today much of this land remains in Crown ownership and has, right back from that time, continued to benefit everybody, except for the detrimental impacts it has had on Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

These are the benefits of colonisation. This is where we need to always remember who has benefited from colonisation. The Crown most certainly has, and parts of the community most certainly have. The cumulative injustice has gotten stronger and stronger every single day that we do not make appropriate restitution for that cumulative impact and breach of Te Tiriti.

I also want to pick up specifically on Ngāti Te Maunga and the mountain peaks and, in particular, Horonuku te Heuheu Tūkino IV and his action of wanting to make a tipu—wanting to grant—in the spirit of generosity. It was a type of gifting whereby those maunga would be protected and preserved for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, for other iwi, and for all New Zealanders.

Consistently, despite an unfortunately and completely untrue narrative that Māori and iwi are greedy, we have in fact done completely the opposite and have wanted to maintain our generosity, manaaki, and aroha to communities with upholding those whakapapa connections and responsibilities to rohe and including the maunga. So I am grateful, and this is just a small example of some of the historical account that is the starting point for me in looking at what has happened.

I’m going to conclude by saying that the Greens have always maintained that these settlements are not full and final, and we will always advocate for a review of the large natural groupings process and how that is dealt with by the Crown. Also, Te Tiriti should be a positive force for social cohesion and a way forward, but that needs to happen by making sure that restitution is full.

Nō reira, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a tātau katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa kia ora tātau katoa.

[So I greet you all, greetings, greetings to us all.]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, and I do apologise for not giving the two-minute bell.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i te reo Māori. “Ehara taku hoa a Kāingaroa he purupuru, he taka ka pā tau ko ahau, ko te tītī, ko te aporei. Ko te tama i āta purupuru mārire ko Ngāti Rangi, ko te angaanga tītī iho i te rangi.”

Ko te take ka tīmata ake au i taku kōrero me te tauparapara o te kāinga, o tōku kāinga o Te Pēwhairangi, ka tuituia te mana o ōku mātua, ōku tūpuna ki runga i te kāinga o Tāpeka ki tō tātou iwi kua pae i te rā nei. Nō reira, e oku rangatira, haere mai rā koutou ki runga i te tāhuhu o tō koutou whare. E tautoko atu ana i ngā mihi kua hōrapa pai ki runga i a tātou ki roto i te roanga ake o tēnei atatū. Ka tīmata ake ki roto i tōku tuakana nei ki a Adrian i whakaritea i tō tātou huihuinga i te ata nei. Kia tau iho mai ngā manaakitanga o te kaihanga ki runga ki tēnā, ki tēnā, ki tēnā o tātou kua tau nei, nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a ia.

Huri tua atu i a ia nei nā ki ngā tini aituā o te wā kua wahaina mai e ngā mema o tēnei Whare ki roto i ngā kōrero i te ata nei. Ko tētahi o rātou ana ko te tupuna a Tā Hepi. I a au e tamariki ana ka whakaaro ake i te tāima a Tā Hepi me tōku tupuna a Tā Hemi ki roto i tō mātou whare ki roto o Amerika. Mahara atu ana au i te tāima ka totohe te tokorua mō te āhuatanga o te Māori e huri haere nei ki runga i te whenua o Amerika. Ka mutu, ka tū mai ko Te Atairangikaahu ki te tohutohu ki ōna tungane, ki te tohutohu ki a rāua me wā rāua whakaaro pōrangi i taua tāima tonu. Koinā te mana o te wāhine te tohutohu i te tāne, ahakoa te teitei o Tā Hepi, ahakoa te teitei o Tā Hēmi, ka tū mai a Te Atairangikaahu ki te tohutohu ki ōna tūngane me pehea. Nō reira, kō ngā maharatanga ki a rātou, arā heke iho mai ki tō teina ki a Timi e te tupuna e Tā Tumu. Ka hoki atu waku mahara ki tō whānau otirā ki ngā tini aituā kua mau nei e koutou ki runga i tō tātou whare i te rā nei. Tēnei ka tangi, tēnei ka mihi, e auē, e auē e auē.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou e Te Whare. Āe, e tika ana ngā mihi nui ki ngā mema o Te Whare nei, ki tō tatou Minita hou a Anaru Iti kua tīmata ake nei i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. Huri tua atu ki te Minita tawhito, a te Hon Chris Finlayson, e mihi atu ana au ki a ia mō ngā mahi nunui i oti i a ia, e pupuru ana i te mana whakahaere o ngā take Tiriti ki roto i Te Whare nei. Nā, huri tua atu ki ngā mema kei roto i te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori, arā, ko tuakana nei a Rino Tirikatene me ngā mema o te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take. Kāre e kore he mahi nunui kei mua i a rātou.

I te nuinga o te wā e Te Whare, ka tau mai te pānuitanga tuatahi o ngā pire pēnei nā ki roto i Te Whare. Ka pōhēhe kua oti, kua tutuki. Ko tāku e kī atu nei ki a koutou ko te roanga ake o tēnei pire ka whai wāhanga tēnā, a tēnā, a tēnā o koutou, otirā tātou ki te āta kōrero, ki te āta wetewete i ngā take kei roto i te pire. Nō reira, kaua e pōhēhē ka tīmata mai ka mutu mai ki runga i te pānuitanga tuatahi, kāhore! Tā te mea kua rongo atu koutou e Ngāti Tūwharetoa i ngā anipā, i ngā māharahara o tēnā, o tēnā, o tēnā o mātou kua kōrero mai i te ata nei. I roto i te haerenga o tēnei pire tae noa atu ki te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take ko reira ka wahaina mai e koutou i ō koutou anipā, i ō koutou māharahara mō te pire nei. Nō reira, kia kaha rā koutou, kia kaha rā koutou ki te ngau i ngā taringa o te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori kia pai ai te haere o tēnei pire, kia pai ai te haerenga o tēnei pire tae noa atu ki tōna tutukitanga. Nō reira, kia kaha rā koutou.

Ki tō tātou pire, kua kōrero mai tōku matua te Hōnore Tararā nei a Shane Jones hei tāna mō te āhuatanga ki Te Kōpua Kānapanapa, ki Te Kōpua Kānapanapa, āe, āe. Mīharo te rongo atu me te pānui i ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei pire e pā ana ki tēnā. Nei ka whakaaro ake ahau ki te mana whakahaere o ngā momo kaupapa pēnei nā, ko tētahi wāhanga ka tukuna atu ki a koutou e Ngāti Tūwharetoa, ko tētahi atu wāhanga ka tukuna atu ki ngā kaunihera ā-rohe, ki tēhea rōpū Karauna, rōpū Kāwanatanga, e hoa ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tērā kaupapa nā runga i te mōhio ko te mana o Tūwharetoa ka kore e neke, ka kore e mimiti noa. Ko te mana o tēnā kaunihera, o tēnā Kāwanatanga, āe ka heke, ka hinga. Nō reira, ko taku pātai atu ki tēnei whare he aha te take ka whakaritea ngā rōpū pēnei nā mehemea ka toitū te mana o Ngāti Tūwharetoa ka heke haere, ka hinga haere te mana o tēnā Kāwanatanga, o tēnā kaunihera. Heoi anō, ka waiho nā atu hei whakaaroaro mā tātou ki roto i te haerenga o tēnei pire.

Tā te mea kua kōrero mai e ngā Minita mō te āhuatanga ki a Ngāpuhi, āe mārika! Kō mātou o te kāinga ko te arohaehae ka pēhea nei te whakatakoto i ngā whakapapa o Ngāpuhi tā te mea i kite atu ahau i te painga ki roto i tēnei pire me te hiahia kia whai karahipi, kia whai take anō waku uri ki roto i ngā nekehanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a koutou. Harikoa ana. Harikoa ana te kite atu ahakoa te pāmamae kua tau ki runga i a koutou, nā i te rahi o te pūtea ka tukuna atu ki a koutou mā koutou e whakahaere. E harikoa ana ka whakahokia ngā wāhi tapu, ngā kāinga ki a koutou ki roto i te roanga ake o tēnei pire.

Heoi anō ko tētahi hei waiho nā atu ki a koutou hei whakaaroaro mā koutou. I kōrero tahi māua ko tōku tuahine nei te Hon Meka Whaitiri. Hei tāna ko tētahi o ana mahi Minita nei hei whakahaere i te harbour master ki runga o Taupō-nui-a-Tia, tēnā pea me ngaungau koutou i te taringa o tēnei ka whakahoki atu tērā mana ki a koutou ki roto i ngā tau e tū mai nei, kāti ka waiho nā atu tēnā ki a koutou, otirā ki te Minita e noho mai nei.

E ōku rangatira, ehara tēnei i te takaroa i ngā kōrero, ehara tēnei i te takaroa i ngā kōrero, ko te tikanga o ngā marae puta noa mehemea ka rongo atu koe i tō ingoa tēnā me tū koe ki te kōrero. Kite atu ahau i ngā rārangi kaikōrero mō te pire nei ko ētahi e mea atu ana, kāhore. Kīhai rātou i hiahia ana kia kōrero ki te pire nei. Engari ka kite atu ahau i ngā mata me ngā kanohi o koutou o Ngāti Tūwharetoa he hokinga mahara, he hokingā mahara. Nō reira, e aku rangatira, ka waiho nā atu ki konei. Kāre e kore ka hoki anō koutou i raro i te tuanui o tēnei whare ki te kōrero i ngā āhuatanga o te pire tae noa ki tōna whakatutukitanga. E te pāpā e Martin, e tika ana ko ngā wero i uhia ki runga i tēnei uri o Ngāpuhi ka tau anō ki runga i a koe e Ngāpuhi. Kāre e kore ki roto i ngā rangi e tū nei, arā ko Te Rā o Waitangi ka kōrero anō tātou katoa i ngā take e pā ana ki tēnei pire o Ngāti Tūwharetoa me ngā kaupapa nui kei mua i te ao Māori, ā, taihoa ake nei.

E ōku rangatira, e ngā mema o Te Whare, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka waiho nā atu i konei, kāti tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ko te manako kia pai ai tō koutou hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga, kia tau anō ngā manaakitanga o Te Kaihanga ki runga ki a koutou i roto i te wā o Te Kirihimete me Te Tau Hou a te Pākehā. Ā te tau e tū nei ka tūtaki anō, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue to speak in the Māori language. “Kāingaroa is of no account, he is caulking which will fall off, but I am Ngāti Rangi, the adorned one, the stable caulking, the lashing, the head which shines down from heaven.”

The reason I started with a chant from home, my home Pēwhairangi, is to connect the prestige of my elders and my ancestors at my home, Tāpeka, to these people here today. So, my leaders, welcome onto the ridgepole of your House. I endorse the greetings conveyed to us all throughout the morning. I will start by acknowledging my elder kin Adrian, who said the prayer for our gathering this morning. The guidance of our creator has been bestowed upon each and all of us here. Therefore I thank him.

I now turn to the many who have departed over time that are being spoken of by the members of this House this morning. One of them is the elder Sir Hepi. When I was a child, I remember a time when Sir Hepi and my grandfather Sir James were staying together in America. I remember the time when they were arguing about the Māori exhibition that was touring America at the time. Then Te Atairangikaahu stood and instructed her male relatives and ticked them off about their silly ideas. Such was the authority of women to instruct the men: no matter how mighty Sir Hepi was, no matter mighty Sir James was, Te Atairangikaahu stood and told her male relatives what to do. So my thoughts return to them and to your younger brother Timi, Sir Tumu. My thoughts return to your family and to many who have passed that you have brought with you to our House today to mourn and acknowledge, and I weep, weep, and weep.

I now return our discussion to us in this House. It is right that we acknowledge the members of this House, and our new Minister, Andrew Little, who started with the first reading of this bill. I turn to the former Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and I thank him for the huge workload he completed and the credibility he maintained while managing settlement issues in this House. I also speak of the select committee, to Rino Tirikatene and the members of the select committee; no doubt they have a huge task in front of them.

Normally, the first reading is when these bills are introduced to the House. You may assume that is then finished, but it is not. What I am saying to you all is that throughout the bill process everyone will get an opportunity to discuss and analyse the issues in this bill. So don’t assume that the first reading is the beginning and end, no. You have heard Tūwharetoa’s concerns expressed this morning. As this bill progresses right through to the select committee stage you are all able to raise your issues and concerns regarding the bill. Therefore, raise these with the Māori Affairs Committee so this bill progresses well through to completion. So I wish you all well.

Regarding our bill, my uncle the honourable Dalmatian Shane Jones has told me about the new statutory board, Te Kōpua Kānapanapa, yes. It is very interesting to listen and read about this in the bill. I then think about the authority of such affairs. A part is given to you Ngāti Tūwharetoa to manage, another part to a territorial authority, another to a Crown or Government agency, and I think about that, knowing that the authority of Tūwharetoa will never diminish or cease. The authority of this territorial authority or that Government agency will diminish or cease. So my question to this House is: why are we establishing these entities if the authority of Ngāti Tūwharetoa will be forever but yet the authority of each Government and council diminishes and ceases? However, I will leave that idea there for us all to ponder as this bill progresses.

Other Ministers have referred to Ngāpuhi, yes indeed! At home we will be analysing how we lay out our Ngāpuhi genealogy, as I can see the benefits contained in this bill and want to know if we can get a scholarship and benefits for my relatives from the developments of Ngāti Tūwharetoa in the years to come. It’s very pleasing. I am pleased, although I can see the pain on your faces because of the size of the financial redress that you will manage. I am happy that sacred sites and settlements will be returned through the bill.

I will leave you with something to think about. I spoke to my colleague here, the Hon Meka Whaitiri. She said one of her roles as a Minister is to oversee the harbour master on Lake Taupō; perhaps you can speak to her about turning that authority over to you as well in the coming years. So I will leave that there with you and also with the Minister sitting beside me.

My leaders, I don’t mean to prolong the discussions, no, but the custom on the marae throughout is to stand and speak when you hear your name. I saw the list of speakers for this bill and some have declined to speak. But I see the eyes and faces of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and you all bring back memories for me. So my leaders, I will leave it here. No doubt you will come back under this roof soon to discuss the issues of this bill again right through to completion. My elder Martin, the challenges that this Ngāpuhi descendant faces will also be on you, fellow Ngāpuhi. No doubt in the days ahead, at Waitangi Day, we will all talk about the issues concerning this bill and those facing the Māori people.

My leaders, members of this House, Mr Speaker, I will leave it here, greetings to you all. I hope you have a safe trip home, and may the Lord guide and look after you during Christmas and the New Year, and we shall meet again in the coming year. Greetings to us all.]

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): E Te Māngai he tino hōnore ki te tū i roto i tēnei whare ki te mihi atu ki a koutou, e ōku nei rangatira mai i te iwi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki a koutou ngā maha o ngā hapū kua haramai nei i tēnei ata mō tēnei wā ka nui te mihi. Otirā kei a koe e te Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu tēnei te mihi ki a koutou e te ariki. Nō reira ko wai tēnei uri e tū ana? Kei raro rā ko Pīhanga te maunga ko Tongariro te awa, ko Hīrangi te marae, ko Ngāti Tūrangitukua te hapū, ko Haukino Granville Duff rāua ko Whaitiri Manunui ōku tīpuna. Nō reira, kei a koutou e te whānau whānui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā koutou katoa.

[It is an honour for me to stand in this House and greet you all, my leaders from Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and the many hapū who have come here this morning. I acknowledge you the paramount chief Sir Tumu Te Heuheu. So who am I standing before you? Pīhanga is the mountain and Tongariro is the mountain, Hīrangi is the marae, Ngāti Tūrangitukua is the hapū, Haukino Granville Duff and Whaitiri Manunui are my grandparents. So I greet you my kin, greetings, greetings to you all.]

The last time I stood and spoke at Hīrangi Marae to the kaumātua, the dame came up to me afterwards because I left my pepeha right till the end and she said, “Next time you ever speak to our people again, never put that at the end, cos they won’t listen to you.” So I thought, “Oh, I’d better heed her advice this time.” Ha, ha!

It’s an honour to stand here amongst you all. This is the first Treaty bill that I’ve had the opportunity to speak to as a member hou of this whare, and it’s fitting that it is for Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I want to acknowledge the trials and tribulations that bring an iwi to this point. There are many mountains to climb, there are many lakes to cross, and there are many rivers to swim through to get to this point, and I know that the beginning of this settlement process—well, they probably started back in the 1860s, or before then, when there were a few promises breached by this Crown to our people, and, more recently, back in 2005, when the movement really started to get going in terms of getting the terms right for the settlement. And I know that there were many starts and stops and hurdles that confronted our people.

I wanted to acknowledge, in particular, first, those of our people that tried to usher this bill through who passed during the process: Eruera Wikiriwhi, Pompei Epiha, Emily Rameka, Ngaire George, and Junior Grant. I also too wanted to acknowledge the leadership by yourself, e te ariki.

I always look to settlements that do well—in my view, and I’ve seen a few; I’ve had the opportunity to work on a lot. Settlements that tend to do well and that bind our people take very strong leadership from the forefront. And to be that rangatira that leads at the front—I can only imagine the pains that you go through in the evenings, when it is quiet, wondering whether you’ve done the right thing by our people. So I want to acknowledge you, e te ariki

I want to acknowledge those that stand by your side and help you usher and make those decisions. I also too want to acknowledge the role of the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, and I acknowledge you, Topia Rameka, “The Bish”—John Bishara, our chairman. In these changing and turbulent times and as our people are required to look at new times as we go through together, there are many more mountains to climb, no doubt, but I have full trust that our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi will come through triumphant.

I too want to just pay homage to my mentor, but also your negotiator, Sir Michael Cullen, for the role that he has played in the Treaty settlement, getting Ngāti Tūwharetoa to this point. There may have been some strong words that this bill had to get through before Christmas, and I don’t know whether that was right or not, but I just want to acknowledge your work there, Sir Michael.

Te Ngaihu Winikau, Eru George, and Gina Rangi: as a young woman, I know that—actually, it’s interesting looking at the young leaders coming through across many of our tribes at the moment. But I did want to acknowledge your leadership, Gina. You’ve had a hard role and—[Time expired]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the words of my colleague, e noho.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā e whakapiri ana ahau aku mihi ki ngā whānau, ngā hapū o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tae atu ki Ariki Tā Tumu Te Heuheu. Anei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai ki te whare Pāremata i tēnei rā ki te whakarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire, nō reira tēnā koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to acknowledge the families and hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and also the paramount chief Sir Tumu Te Heuheu. I am here to greet you all who have come here to Parliament today to listen to the first reading of this bill. So greetings to you.]

It’s a great pleasure for me to stand and speak to this bill, first of all, as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Hauāuru. The area of interest for Ngāti Tūwharetoa extends all the way into my electorate, as far as the Rangitīkei. So I acknowledge my whanaunga at Ngāti Waewae. I also acknowledge the part of me from Kākahi: Ngāti Manunui. My great-grandfather was from there. I acknowledge all of my connections directly to Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

I always make a point of trying to read the historical account—not just the summary in the bill, but going back to the deed of settlement. There is a 100-page historical account within the deed of settlement. As others have mentioned in this debate, it looks at the events that have taken place over a long period of time. My colleague Rino Tirikatene got up to 1860—it goes a lot further. It talks about every major incident and interaction between the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Like other historical accounts, it’s a sad history, but it’s one that needs to be acknowledged.

Within the bill, under the acknowledgments of the breaches of the Crown—I don’t think I’ve ever read so many acknowledgments—there is a total of 32 acknowledgments in this bill, and if I can just read one of them, the very first one: “The Crown recognises that every generation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa since 1840 has been adversely affected by the Crown’s failure to uphold its obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

That kind of summarises the other 31. The other 31 go into particular detail about the breaches by the Crown of the Treaty of Waitangi, which have impacted on every generation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I say it’s only right that this bill comes to the House and that we have this first reading of the bill so that we can specifically acknowledge what is actually in this bill.

I reflect upon the day on which the deed of settlement was signed at the Waitetoko Marae, and I mihi atu to Ngāti Rangiita [I acknowledge Ngāti Rangiita] for their hosting of that event on that date. On that day, I had the privilege and pleasure of speaking to some hapū representatives. This has been a long journey, this settlement process, and for some hapū the journey takes longer than for others, it would be fair to say. I spoke with one representative in particular, whose hapū had only recently made the decision to sign the deed of settlement. I think it would be fair to say that she was feeling a little bit anxious about whether they had made the right decision or not. I hope that I was able to give her some confidence, and I shared some stories with her about what that process means and what it would mean for the future generations of her hapū and for Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

As has been said in this House before, this is an imperfect process, but it’s the one that has been accepted by this House, and, more importantly, it is one that has been accepted by iwi that are settling their historical claims. I shared with her my thoughts that this settlement will provide an opportunity for the future—being future focused around addressing all of these acknowledgments that are in this bill and finding a way to address these issues so that the next generation can have a better life, so that when the Crown, in the bill, says that it recognises that every generation of Ngāti Tūwharetoa since 1840 has been adversely affected: let this be the last generation.

It’s very important not only that we have those acknowledgments but that the Crown apologises for that as well. The apology really means that the Crown will no longer adversely affect another generation. So I find it a real honour to be able to acknowledge that. The test of that will come in the future. The test of that is that we never ever see Ngāti Tūwharetoa having to come back to this House to have any breach of the Treaty addressed ever again. I think that’s a challenge for every single member of this House, regardless of which party is in Government. That’s a challenge for all of us.

I don’t want to take too much time, but I do finally want to acknowledge every single hapū that has agreed to this settlement. I hope, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, that I get to hear submissions from many, many hapū and many, many whānau and individuals about what their thoughts about this bill and this settlement are. One thing, I would like to encourage everyone that has an interest in this bill to actually make a submission so that when your descendants come to find out about the history of this, the submissions will be recorded in history for ever, and they will know exactly what their ancestors thought about it.

Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, otirā e tika ana kia tuku mihi anō ki a Ngāti Tūwharetoa, nō reira tēnā tātau.

[So I will not go on any further, and it is right that we acknowledge Ngāti Tūwharetoa. So greetings to us all.]

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): E mihi kau ana ki a koutou Tūwharetoa iwi e tau mai ki Te Upoko o te Ika ki te taitoko i te kaupapa nei te muru o te hara nā te kāwanatanga e mahia, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I greet you the people of Tūwharetoa who have arrived here in Wellington to support the acknowledgment of Government wrongs. Greetings to you all.]

It is with great privilege and humility that I have the opportunity to stand and say a few words in support, this morning, of the first reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill and to add just some small comments to some very powerful kōrero that I have been listening to.

Can I first acknowledge Sir Tumu te Heuheu and all of your people who are here today to witness this very special occasion. Can I also acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little. I actually have great confidence that the quality of leadership and perspective and judgment that, I think, most in this House would agree has been the performance of the Hon Chris Finlayson will, in a very real sense, be continued by the judgment and leadership and perspective that you will bring to the role, and I look forward to working with you in that role.

I have been deeply moved reflecting on the historical account. Many this morning have given it greater voice than I can, but when you reflect on the scale of the Crown purchase negotiations, on the impact of the native land laws, on the extraordinary generosity that underpinned the gifting of the Tongariro maunga, and the response by the Crown, and the impact of the mana of Tūwharetoa subsequent to that; to the 1890s and the introduction of trout and other exotic fish into the extraordinary, precious Lake Taupō, through the 20th century and the prolonged imposition orders against private alienation of land owned by Ngāti Tūwharetoa—sir, the list goes on and on.

The thing that I have been struck by, as someone relatively new to this House and certainly new to the Māori Affairs Committee, is, in my case, the complete lack of understanding of the history of your people and what you have suffered at the hands of the Crown. I stand here as a 48-year-old New Zealander, acknowledging that my understanding of our history is woefully limited, but I doubt that I am alone. One of the small but powerful benefits of your generosity in being here and resolving this settlement with the Crown is that it puts in sharp focus for all of the country an opportunity to understand your extraordinary journey of sacrifice and humility and graciousness to this country that you have endured over the last 150 years.

Most people would be crushed by the experience, yet somehow, as a people, it has made you stronger and it has never impacted your generosity of spirit to this country, and I am very proud now to have a very small understanding of that process. I look forward to being in Tūrangi as part of the select committee, with our chair and all parties, to hear personally more of those stories and to lift my understanding and appreciation of your generosity. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Tongariro maunga, Taupō moana, Tūwharetoa tangata, e te ariki Tumu tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou me te pātaka kōrero e poupoungia kei runga i a Pūkawa hei paihere ā tātau waka, ā tātau nei iwi hinganga ki uta, hinganga ki tai ka tū te mana nā koutou i haria mai tērā kei waenganui i a tātau i tēnei wā. Tēnā katoa.

[Tongariro mountain, Lake Taupō, Tūwharetoa people, to the paramount chief Tumu, I greet you and acknowledge the wealth of history embedded at Pūkawa that binds our canoes, our tribes, and dead from the sea to the inland. Your attendance has manifested that authority here. Greetings to you all.]

I want to make a few contributions in light of the first reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill. I was at Waitetoko and witnessed the signing, and underpinning that signing was a very long journey, as has been mentioned by previous speakers.

The Treaty settlement process, by and large, isn’t designed to keep unity, because the process in itself is a very difficult one to navigate. But I acknowledge the fact that, in navigating this process and getting to this point, there has been a lot of insight gained, a lot of leadership having to be committed to an enduring solution, and also a vision towards what the future could look like as a result of signing this particular agreement.

I want to make a couple of comments on some contributions that have been made, and in light of the huge contribution that Ngāti Tūwharetoa has gifted to this nation, as a beacon, I think, of how this country may shape its identity. Many know the history of the gifting of Tongariro, and gifting in the context that has been referred to in the House somewhat misses the point, in my view, because, in the spirit of generosity, which certainly the tūpuna in Ngāti Tūwharetoa demonstrated by gifting the maunga, it was, in a sense, a way of acknowledging that there is a higher purpose in power there, in terms of our taonga, our maunga, and that the generosity of spirit is always followed by reciprocity and an enduring commitment to a way of acknowledging each other’s respect and mana for things like the protection of maunga.

We’ve seen that thinking come through over time, not only in relation to Tongariro, but also in relation to Taupō Moana. And I think, in today’s context, that is reflected in the co-management approach that is embedded within the settlement agreement that we are talking about today, but also in the way that Tūwharetoa has demonstrated, in its other domains, how it seeks to assert a sense of responsibility and commitment to a place that they will never leave.

So I want to make comment on that, because often we think about gifting as once you give it, it’s gone. But, actually, that’s not the case in this sense. Once you give something, it’s a magnanimous act to say, “We have a shared responsibility, and it’s an enduring one.” No matter if people come and go, that intergenerational knowledge and understanding of the purpose of that type of gift has an enduring responsibility, which, in the New Zealand context, the Crown and Ngāti Tūwharetoa will commit to for ever and ever and ever and ever.

The second thing I wanted to comment on is that one of the difficult aspects of the Treaty settlement process, which we might not tend to appreciate, is actually holding a mandate throughout a very difficult time. We can often kind of giggle about it, but only in reflection, but when you’re going through the process of holding a mandate and gaining confidence and keeping people engaged in the process, you cannot underestimate the toll it takes on the negotiators—and I want to recognise them—but, more importantly, the leadership, Tā Tumu, that you demonstrated by ensuring that this type of settlement kept faith with what the people wanted. And, ultimately, when you look at clause 13 and the outlining of the names of the hapū that are represented there, the people, essentially, wanted to ensure that their distinct and independent identity within the context of Ngāti Tūwharetoa could still be preserved and retained in a way that might ensure that future generations have a very solid way of connecting not only back to their marae and their hapū but to this bigger sense of self, which is Ngāti Tūwharetoa. It’s not an easy task.

I look to the other aspects of this settlement and the Wai claims that are outlined, many of which I’m sure my colleague Louisa will comment on. Again, there is a lot of vested interest in the way that people have held on to their Wai claims and wanted to ensure, not only on their behalf as their family but really their tūpuna, in the historical context from which those Wai claims emerged, that they can hold on to that sense of integrity around what their tūpuna were trying to ensure would not be lost to the next generation or the next generation. We all know it takes only one generation to lose something, and it takes almost seven to regain it back. That is why holding a mandate and getting to this point is such a significant moment.

But we shouldn’t stop there, because this settlement demonstrates that there is a commitment to co-management and working within the rohe for the benefit of the iwi aspiration in ways that I think, again, provide a leading light and an example to other iwi.

Tūwharetoa’s no stranger to making things happen. So while a lot has been outlined in terms of the historical context for the claim, we have already seen, in terms of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and the settlement trust, the way in which it’s involved in both forestry and fisheries management. There is huge opportunity in the future to consolidate that effort, and that, as Mr Finlayson has referred to, is something for the iwi to respond to.

Common sense will tell you that while, organisationally, that can happen, it requires leadership still, and that’s no easy task. And I really look forward to the insights and the reflections through this process and what it might lead you to in years to come.

The select committee process will raise a number of opportunities for people to bring their submissions and maybe contest aspects of the agreement. It’s a really hard position for the select committee to be in, because, almost undoubtedly, it’s very difficult to change an agreement once it has been signed. But people should feel that the public nature of that process, again, gives an opportunity for voices to be heard and for the spirits of tūpuna to come to this place so that they are held in trust, and then, hopefully, that there is a way of easing the path forward as the settlement progresses.

The last thing I want to point to is the cultural redress components, because we know, as a place, Taupō is a huge tourist destination for a number of people. The health of the lake is critically important, and the fact that a number of the scenic reserves around the lake are coming back to the iwi will, I think, provide a good model for the council in terms of how they might better manage the influx of tourism numbers, the care of the reserves, and also, more importantly, the impact of that on the lake.

Now, why would I say this? Of course, we hold Taupō at the cornerstone of what we would hope for the Waikato River. Ha, ha! So you would have no problem from iwi further down the river holding up aspirations to ensure that, at its source, Taupō can continue to have the level of water clarity that provides hope and inspiration to us all, as we all want to clean up and improve the quality of our water.

Our ancestors say often, pūrea nei e ngā hau o Tāwhirimatea [cleanse yourself in the winds of Tāwhirimātea] but they also say, haere ki ngā wai tukukiri a ngā mātua tupuna [go to the cleansing waters of your people to be healed in spirit] and that is what Tūwharetoa and Taupō Moana represents, certainly for my people—“Go to the cleansing waters of your people to be healed in spirit.”

And I hope that, as this process continues and the insights are gained, the people of Tūwharetoa make this settlement and your consolidated opportunities all that they can be and should be, but must be, for the mokopuna of the next generation. Nō reira kia koutou katoa, tēnā tātou.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):

Ko te rōpū rangatahi o ngā maunga

E tū mai rā ki te whenua e

Tongariro, Ngāuruhoe me Ruapehu e

Tauhara me Pihanga, arohaina e

Ko Taupō Nui a Tia te kōpua kanapa

I te rohe o Te Heuheu, o te matua

E te ariki Tumu, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[To the chief Tumu, to the authorities, orators, and many leaders, my kin Ngāti Tūwharetoa; greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

I stand as a proud uri of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and today is our day, and today is a day where we actually recognise and celebrate all those who have brought us to this point in time.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that Ariki Mananui te Heuheu Tūkino II didn’t sign the Treaty of Waitangi; he refused to. He refused to bow down to another sovereign power, actually. That was irrelevant to the Crown. The Crown treated our iwi and our hapū who signed the Treaty or didn’t sign the Treaty the same. The agenda, from the Crown’s perspective, was the same. It’s been interesting reading through our Treaty settlement, and I will reference some historical contributions that I found quite interesting. But I do want to start with clause 8, “Summary of historical account”, and I will read it: “(1) Before 1860, Ngāti Tūwharetoa actively opposed Crown purchase negotiations for land in their rohe. Following the invasion of Crown forces in the Waikato in 1863, Ngāti Tūwharetoa were drawn into the fighting because of their whakapapa connections and allegiance to the Kīngitanga. The war marked the beginning of widespread disruption to the social, political, and economic structures of Ngāti Tūwharetoa life. A number of Ngāti Tūwharetoa people lost their lives in these battles.”

We actually lost whakapapa. We lost whakapapa. We lost our tūpuna. We lost our whenua. In some ways, it could have led to the loss of our identity, but the reality is that we were too strong, and we are strong and we remain strong. But what it does highlight is the lost opportunity for our tribe. It’s that opportunity cost, actually, why we are here today. It is the opportunity that we lost to develop our lands, to develop our forests, to actually be an economic powerhouse in this country. But through, always, the good grace, a sense of truth and reconciliation, we as hapū and iwi can move forward.

I’d like to highlight, also on page 13 of our Treaty settlement, in clause 8(4), and you’ll see why later: “From the 1890s, trout and other exotic fish were introduced into Lake Taupo and the waterways of Tongariro, which significantly depleted indigenous fresh-water fish species and forced Ngāti Tūwharetoa to rely on introduced fish species for food, hospitality, trade, and koha. In 1926, the Crown acquired the beds of Lake Taupo and its tributaries, which it held for 66 years before they were returned to Ngāti Tūwharetoa in 1992.” On that same page, clause 8(7)—and I really want to highlight this—“Economic marginalisation, unemployment, and underdevelopment have contributed to the extensive outward migration of Ngāti Tūwharetoa peoples as they have left their rohe in search of opportunities elsewhere.”

I’ve got two brothers who live in Perth. I’m sure, like me, they would like to live at home. Why did they go away? They went away because of the lost opportunity for us to develop our own economic base. In highlighting that, I actually want to highlight and acknowledge our ahi kā—our whānau who have stayed at home, who have kept our home fires burning. For me, it’s my baby sister, Janice Wall, in Waitahanui, and it’s also my cousins Ngātoru and Ngāhere, who, like me, will continue to contribute to our identity, our collective identity, as we move into the future.

I’d like to acknowledge the definition and meaning of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, because it’s about our affiliation to the following hapū: Ngāti Haa, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Hine, Ngāti Hinemihi, Ngāti Hinerau, Ngāti Hineure, Ngāti Kurauia, Ngāti Manunui, Ngāti Moekino, Ngāti Parekaawa, Ngāti Rauhoto, Ngāti Rongomai, Ngāti Ruingārangi, Ngāti Tarakaiahi, Ngāti Te Kohera, Ngāti Te Maunga, Ngāti Te Rangiita, Ngāti Te Urunga, Ngāti Tūrangitukua, Ngāti Turumākina, Ngāti Tūtemohuta, Ngāti Tūtetawhā, Ngāti Waewae, Ngāti Wairangi, Ngāti Whēro, and Te Kapa o Te Rangiita.

It’s quite interesting—I’m quite obsessive about Wai claims, because I like looking at who the claimants were and when we started this journey. Obviously, in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was created. But the first Wai claim that’s listed in our deed of settlement is Wai 18 (Lake Taupo Claim), and it was really interesting doing some research because I’ve found a report dated 15 October 1986, signed by E T J Durie, who was the chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. Wai 18 was actually a claim by H T Karaitiana relating to Lake Taupō fishing rights, and Mr Karaitiana, who lived at Waitahanui, Taupō, “sought ‘the intervention’ of the Waitangi Tribunal on ‘the proposed law changes in regards to the taking of freshwater whitebait or inanga by the Tuwharetoa Maoris from Lake Taupo.” The interpretation of his letter was about “a reference to the Lake Taupo Fishing Regulations of 1984, assented to on 17 December 1984, to regularise certain earlier regulations held invalid by the District Court in dismissing charges against D Tahau and other for spearing trout.”

What I found really interesting in reading through this is that it referenced, “(c) In 1975 N Wall,”—I’m not sure if that was my Uncle Nick—“a Maori, was charged with taking smelt from Lake Taupo. It was held in the District Court that he was entitled to take smelt apparently on the basis that smelt was ‘indigenous to New Zealand’ even although it may not be indigenous to Lake Taupo. That decision was upheld in the Supreme Court in May 1976. (d) The Maori Purposes Act 1981 then ‘rewrote’ the 1926 Act to provide that ‘indigenous fish’ meant ‘indigenous to the Lake’. (e) the Taupo Fishing Regulations 1983 then provided: … only Tuwharetoa Māori can take koura or other fish indigenous to the lake.” I presume that was the morihana.

When you think about days like today, for me, I remember my Uncle Nick, my Uncle Darkie, all of our whānau, my father, who have fought so hard. And all of our hapū have our champions, our rangatira, who have fought for us to be here today. Today is one where we remember the legacy and the pathway that they’ve created for us. So I’m incredibly grateful. I’m incredibly grateful to be proud to be Ngāti Tūtemohuta, Ngāti Tūwharetoa. I know who I am. I know where I come from, and because of that identity, I can do anything. So, in the words of a whanaunga Moana Maniapoto, I want to sing us a waiata that’s one of her waiata, and if you know it, please join me.

We are warriors, warriors

The Māori nation

Across the wide wide creation

We won’t kneel down, we won’t kneel down

Upon the ground, upon the ground

Oh, how I love to hear them say my Māori name.

Ko te iwi Māori

Tātou

Ko ngā taonga piripono a ngā tūpuna

Me te aroha, me te aroha

Me te mana, me te mana

Me te tino rangatiratanga e.

Kia ora tātou.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I put the question, I just want to personally acknowledge in the gallery former neighbours, friends—I was going to say people who I taught—people who were in my class. I’m not sure that I taught them much. Especially, Te Ariki Tumu, I want to acknowledge your father, your brother Timi, your sister Girlie, and particularly yourself, for the many years of kind, gentle, and wise advice that you have bestowed on me personally. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, signed near Wairoa on 26 November 2016, just over a year ago. The deed of settlement settles all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. The settlement comprises historical redress, recording the Crown’s breaches and past injustices; cultural redress, acknowledging connections to land and resources of significance to the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa; relationship redress, building new connections with the Crown, local authorities, and other groups; and financial and commercial redress, providing a strong economic base for the future.

I acknowledge the work of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa negotiators, Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, and the governance entity, Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust. I also acknowledge the work of the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, whose mahi in this area has been phenomenal and will be a legacy to this House for some time to come. I acknowledge also the Government agencies and local authorities for their contributions to the bill. I’d like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered the bill, for exploring the issues raised in submissions and ensuring the bill has been progressed. The bill was referred to the committee on 14 March 2017. The committee received 29 written submissions from interested groups and individuals, and heard 17 of these at a hearing in Wairoa on 12 May this year. The committee reported the bill back to the House on 25 July this year, and recommended it be passed with a small number of amendments.

The committee’s commentary on the bill focuses on issues raised in the submissions that were made on the bill. A key issue for submitters was the claimant definition of “iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa”. Several submissions requested changes to the schedule to the claimant definition so that hapū could be more appropriately acknowledged. Some submitters also thought that some hapū had been left out of the claimant definition, because they were not specifically listed in the schedule. During Treaty negotiations, the claimant definition was researched, negotiated, agreed by the parties, and ratified by the claimant community. Furthermore, hapū that were not specifically listed in the schedule to the claimant definition may still benefit from the settlement, provided they fit within the claimant definition at clause 13. The committee accepted this advice.

Another key issue for submitters was the historical redress included in the Treaty settlement. In particular, submitters expressed concern about the scope of the historical account and the process used for writing the historical account. The historical account is an important element of the settlement, as it records the history of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa’s interactions with the Crown, and the Crown’s actions and omissions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi. It’s not a general history of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. The committee examined the process used for writing the historical account, and were satisfied that this was robust.

Finally, some submitters considered that the relationship redress for Te Urewera, in the form of a partnership with Te Urewera Board, was unfair or inequitable. The committee examined these submissions, as well as a report prepared by Sir Wira Gardiner on Te Urewera redress. Sir Wira Gardiner’s report found that redress in the form of a partnership agreement with the board was in line with the level of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa’s interests in Te Urewera. The committee was satisfied that agreement on Te Urewera redress had been reached after a robust consultation process.

The committee did recommend some minor and technical amendments to the bill. These ensure consistency between the bill and the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa deed of settlement, and add greater specificity. This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stages of settling the historical claims of the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, and I look forward to talking in more detail at the third reading, when we fully celebrate the settlement. Until then, I commend this bill to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā rā koutou o ngā pūāwaitanga o ō tātou mātua tīpuna. Nei rā ngā mihi hōhonu ki ngā uri o Takitimu waka. Ka tū au hei uri o Tamateapōkaiwhenua nāna i whakaingoa tōku mauka, Te Poho-o-Tamateapōkaiwhenua, kei te wāhi o Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa i Whakaraupō. Nō reira, ka tū te mihi ka ōku whanaunga o ngā iwi, hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa.

[Greetings to the descendants of our forebears. My heartfelt greetings to the descendants of the Takitimu canoe. I stand as a descendant of Tamateapōkaiwhenua, who named my mountain Te Poho-o-Tamateapōkaiwhenua in the region of Te Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa i Whakaraupō. So I stand to greet my relatives of the iwi and hapū of the Te Wairoa region.]

I do stand to acknowledge the iwi and hāpu of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and ngā uri o [the descendants of] Rongomaiwahine and her husband Kahungunu. These tipuna are acknowledged and respected by my Ngāi Tahu iwi as our tipuna as well. To the iwi and the hāpu of te rohe o Te Wairoa, I extend my humblest greetings.

I had the privilege of chairing the Māori Affairs Committee during the submissions phase of this bill. On that note, I want to again acknowledge the new Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, but also the new chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene. I think the good thing there is that we have a continuation of like-mindedness when it comes to the Māori Affairs Committee, and the fact is that we continue the congeniality, the collaboration across the House. Earlier we spoke very much about that collaboration and how important it was that we work, as Māori members of Parliament, for the benefit of Te Iwi Māori and the wider New Zealand.

So, on that note, I want to cover off some of the things. We travelled to Wairoa, and I acknowledge the manaaki that we received in Wairoa. Also, we travelled there, as the Māori Affairs Committee, to hear 17 of the 29 submissions—20 of which supported the bill and gave no position, and one gave conditional support. A number of the issues that were raised I think I want to just highlight here in the second reading. There was one around Morere Springs. The other one was the Hereheretau Station, as well. Then, also, there was the issue that the Hon Andrew Little has actually covered, which is the Te Urewera and the Waikaremoana situation.

We did consider the Hereheretau Station in some detail. In September 2016, the then Minister, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and officials from Te Tumu Paeroa, the Māori Trustee, visited Whakakī Marae to discuss the future of the station with the iwi there. I think the outcome was that the redress in relation to the station would not be considered in this Treaty settlement because it was actually under private ownership. Talking about the Hereheretau Station, what we actually hope is that there is continual kōrero so that that particular issue can be sorted, not within this Treaty settlement, but outside of that. But what this Treaty settlement did is it actually created a catalyst for ongoing kōrero about Hereheretau Station to actually happen. So we wish them well there.

I think the other part was around the Morere Springs. The committee actually considered the request from the mandated negotiators that the springs be taken out of the cultural redress in the agreement in principle and changed to a vest- and gift-back property instead. The committee was happy to agree to this change. The negotiators preferred that the cultural properties not be invested as part, actually, again, of any settlement. So that was agreed, actually, by the committee.

In the final part of this highlighting of the submissions process, I think one thing that’s really important here is that when submitters come to the committee to submit or when we go to them to hear their submissions, the important thing is that you not only listen to all submissions but listen very hard also to those that actually dissent, particularly within the Treaty settlement process, because there are very important messages that actually come out of that.

What I want to highlight in this particular settlement is around the Te Wairoa Tāpokorau Cluster 1, because they opposed the bill unless various conditions were met. One of the conditions that actually stood out for me was—OK, there is the real loss in dollar terms. What they actually wanted, though, is they wanted recorded in the Treaty settlement the actual loss, the monetary loss that they believed they had been subject to, or are subject to. They actually put a number on it of $1.5 billion. It is actually quite a unique thing that there is a particular group within the Treaty settlements—since I’ve been here anyway—that have actually required or asked for a figure to be put on what they actually lost.

Look, there’s no doubt that the real loss here in this particular settlement, like most or all of them, is substantial. I’m not going to quibble over the figure, but, rather, point out that virtually no settlement can fully address the harm that Treaty breaches have caused iwi throughout the country. We all acknowledge that; we know that, particularly as parliamentarians. I think the fact that the iwi are prepared to settle for cents in the dollar speaks to the level of forgiveness that Māori actually continue to offer in this particular country, in our country.

I note the various conditions and I wanted to highlight them here, around Te Wairoa Tāpokorau Cluster 1 and what they’ve put forward. In essence, what they also recorded was that all their land should be returned to them and that a true partnership should not leave the hāpu subject to the whims of the Crown. The other part was that the Crown should provide all the resources required for the hāpu to create their own social services, to better provide for their people in need. So the committee, and also myself, had really great sympathy for this, particularly for them coming as dissenting voices within the submission process. But, at the same time, the responsibility to the Crown is to settle with the iwi. So this bill before the House is our effort to discharge that duty under the Treaty of Waitangi. So there, I think: acknowledge it, but we need to continue to move on so that we can continue to move to the third reading to settle this particular settlement once and for all.

On that note, just to acknowledge then all of the fine work that’s gone into this Treaty settlement to date; also, the understanding and working in the spirit of kotahitanga with the negotiators, both on the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa side and also the Crown negotiators as well. On that note, also to acknowledge those who came to submit, because they actually represented a huge part of those members right across the board. On that note, again, to the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament: a lot of the kōrero, the discussion, that took place; the input, particularly from the local member of Parliament there, the now Hon Meka Whaitiri, to also give us that local view as well on how people were feeling and what they were doing. Acknowledging also the work that Tā Wira Gardiner did, particularly around the Waikaremoana issue as well. On that note, look, I really do look forward to this bill moving through this particular process and then on to the third reading. Nō reira e koutou rā, e mihi, e mihi, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora.

[So I thank you all.]

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Ōku rau rangatira mā, ngā hapū, e te iwi o Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau, Māhia, Waikaremoana hoki, nau mai, nau mai hoki mai. Nau mai hoki mai i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira, te pānui tuarua o tō koutou pire, nō reira kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

[Thank you to Madam Deputy Speaker as well as to the members of the House, greetings to you all. To my leaders, the hapū, and iwi of Te Wairoa Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau, Māhia, and Waikaremoana, welcome, welcome. I welcome you on your return for this very important occasion, the second reading of your bill. I greet you and acknowledge you.]

I’m pleased to rise and make a contribution in the second reading of this bill. Can I just say that in this House I have stood and spoken with a lot of passion around legislation to do with Māori land alienation, and no better can I reflect on the passion of talking about that than in this particular iwi’s situation. Approximately 600,000 acres, according to the negotiator Johnny Whaanga in the Te Arawhiti Truth and Reconciliation Report, was lost by these people, and I want to take the time of the House to just give a chronological order of the land loss that these people suffered.

Between 1864 and 1868, the Crown purchased 83,000 acres. In April 1867, some Wairoa Māori agreed, under duress, to cede 42,000 acres to the Crown. In 1867 and 1868, the Native Land Court awarded ownership of numerous Wairoa blocks to a maximum of 10 individual owners. Since 1870, the Crown has compulsorily taken more than 500 acres for public works purposes from the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. In 1875, the Crown acquired 178,000 acres of land near Lake Waikaremoana, and then, by 2001, we have it recorded that approximately 90 percent of the population of Wairoa did not live in that rohe. Over 600,000 acres were taken from these people by the actions of the Crown, and so there is a story behind why I have stood so passionately against law that this House passes that may lead to further land alienation from Māori people.

Despite the people losing so much land, I want to acknowledge the huge contribution they have made to the fabric of this country in terms of leadership and in terms of their tīpuna going to war for this nation, and that is no better reflected than in Sir James Carroll, a noted leader from these people. Despite land loss, they were able to contribute under his leadership, and he will go down in the annals of this House for the extensive contribution he made to the fabric of New Zealand.

I just want to reflect on Sir James Carroll, or, as he was commonly known, Tā Timi Kara. I want to talk about him being an interpreter and a land agent, first and foremost. He was first elected to the Eastern Maori seat in 1887. He was the Acting Colonial Secretary—which is now known as the Minister of Internal Affairs—from 1897 to 1899. He was the first Māori to hold the Cabinet position of the Minister of Native Affairs, from 1899 to 1912. He was highly regarded by the Liberal Party and was also the Acting Prime Minister in 1909 and 1911. So, unfortunately for our Hon Winston Peters and our Hon Kelvin Davis, we had the member in this House who was the first and foremost Acting Prime Minister. Sir James’s legacy will go on, and it’s important that I reflect and acknowledge him as we read the second reading of this bill.

I want to also reflect, despite this iwi losing so much land, the contribution they gave in the war efforts of this nation. Despite losing land and becoming literally landless in their own rohe, they were also contributing to the war effort in the First World War and the Second World War. I want to acknowledge those who are in the gallery whose tīpuna went away and fought on behalf of this nation.

I want to acknowledge Nuk Korako, the former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, who talked about the Hereheretau farm. We need to take ourselves back and say that here was a people, particularly the people of Whakakī, and their land was taken to be a Māori Soldiers Trust for all the Māori soldiers that came back to this country as they returned from the war effort. At no time did the people of Whakakī enjoy any benefits from the land that was taken from them, and, to this day, it’s still a burning issue for the people of Whakakī. I want to acknowledge the former chair saying in his address that it is still an important issue that must be sorted out for the people—the hapū—of Whakakī but also with the Māori Soldiers Trust, to ensure that they at least have representation on that trust, because I know that is a very dear matter to the people of Whakakī.

I also want to thank the submitters that came to the select committee that we had in Wairoa. I don’t want to repeat what the former chair acknowledged, but I do want to ensure that the Hereheretau farm is addressed—though, obviously, not in this bill. It’s one of those ongoing issues that we do need to come to, and, I’m sure, with the newly appointed Treaty Minister, we’ll get that opportunity, or—I don’t know—we might kick it to the new Minister for Crown/Māori Relations, potentially, so that we can get that matter sorted.

I want to acknowledge the new Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little. I want to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for the work in ensuring that we get this bill here. There was a challenge there, I heard, in the Hon Chris Finlayson’s earlier contribution, Minister Little, and it may be that we have to get you on the golf course to see if you too can get a hole in one. Maybe we’ll get two holes in one, because we have higher standards over here on this side of the House. But I do want to acknowledge the work of the former Minister, and I look forward to the work that the current Minister is going to do.

So there are a couple of issues around the hapū definitions. I want to say that we have to be very careful, as Crown officials, that we don’t take the onus of interpreting who makes the hapū cut and who doesn’t make the hapū cut. In this particular settlement, that was very clearly expressed to us at the hearings of the hapū wanting to be included, and of course the post-settlement group had no issue with those particular hapū being included. It’s a cautionary note to all us members in this House that whakapapa is the domain of hapū and iwi, and the Crown needs to be guided by that.

Look, I’m pleased that we are getting to the final readings of this important bill. I want to acknowledge the negotiators, particularly John Whaanga and Tāmati Olsen. I want to acknowledge our chairman of the post-settlement group, Leon Symes—who is in the gallery—and, of course, Pieri Munro, and I also want to acknowledge the aunties who have travelled all the way down from Māhia to join in this second reading. It is indeed an honour to stand here in support of this important bill but, more importantly, to stand as the local member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to acknowledge you here today. I do commend this bill to the House and look forward to its third and final reading.

No reira e te iwi tēnei te mihi aroha, tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[So, to the iwi, I express my compassion and appreciation to you all. Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Those who snipe about Treaty settlements really ought to familiarise themselves with the facts that gave rise to this negotiation. Even a cursory reading of the acknowledgments and the historical account indicates that what was lost here by the good people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa was very, very extensive. That is why this is, I think, the fourth-largest settlement in the history of Treaty negotiations.

It was a great day when we signed the deed of settlement at Wairoa. I think Mr Korako was there, and Jo Hayes. I don’t know that Meka Whaitiri was there; I think she had a tangi or some other commitment as the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. But it was a great settlement, and I commend the negotiators for all the very good work that they did.

I’ve got only a few comments I want to make, because this is, after all, a second reading speech and, consistent with the Standing Orders, I will focus on the bill as it emerged from the select committee, so as not to incur the Deputy Speaker’s wrath.

The first thing I want to talk about is the Hereheretau Station. For myself, I’m not all that happy with the outcome here. I can’t, for the life of me, see why the bare title couldn’t be held by the relevant hapū of Te Wairoa, and I hope that the administration will look into that, because I would have thought that that was a perfectly acceptable outcome, with the income going to the scholarships as set up by the trust.

I’m always very wary, as some of the members of the Government know, about those who say that an asset is a strategic asset. I recall very well, a couple of years ago, Michael Cullen had been told, in relation to Flock House and the farm around Flock House, that it was unavailable for a settlement with Ngāti Apa because it was a strategic asset. Then, a couple of years later, after the legislation had been passed, the relevant Crown entity—I think it was AgResearch—put Flock House and the farm on the market. It took Adrian Rurawhe and his team at Ngāti Apa to threaten to occupy the land for there to be a useful discussion, and, of course, that farm has now been transferred to Ngāti Apa and they are doing amazing work there with a neighbouring farming family called the Dalrymples. They’re doing great work. I inspected it a couple of months ago with Ian McKelvie, the local MP, and I said to myself: how was it that this farm was ever considered to be a so-called strategic asset? This issue needs to be interrogated fairly carefully over the next little period because, as I say, I can’t see why the land cannot be held by the hapū and the proceeds go to the beneficiaries of the trust.

The second issue I want to talk about is the Te Urewera partnership agreement. I note that the select committee received submissions on it, and some people thought the redress was unfair or inequitable. But I beg to differ; I think it’s very good redress—that there are these overlapping claims. As the report says, there are six iwi who have overlapping interests in this area. There’s Ngāi Tūhoe, which I settled; Ngai Tāmanuhiri, which I settled; Ngāti Pāhauwera, which I settled; Rongowhakaata, which I settled; and then you’ve got Māhaki—well, it’ll settle when one particular person gets his act in order—and Ngāti Ruapani, which should be able to be settled in five minutes, as soon as Tūhoe give Mr Little the instruction.

But there are overlapping interests, and they need to be looked at. I think that the partnership agreement set out in Subpart 8 of Part 2, which provides for the establishment of a partnership agreement between Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust and Te Urewera Board, will actually do a very good job. I think it’s a very good solution to dealing with these overlapping claims. I say to Wairoa: all my dealings with Ngāi Tūhoe have been more than satisfactory. They’re excellent people, and I am sure they are going to deal with Wairoa in a very practical and just manner.

I have every confidence that the partnership agreement is going to work well. People would expect me to say that, because it’s well known that Tūhoe have adopted me, much to the chagrin of Sir Tīpene O’Regan, who thought he had me. But I’m probably the Pākehā son of Ngāi Tūhoe and also Ngāi Tāhu, to settle down Nuk Korako.

The final issue concerns Ngāti Kahungunu’s interests in Lake Waikaremoana. This was a deed that was drawn up, I think, a long time ago by a great friend of both Wairoa, or Ngāti Kahungunu, and Ngāi Tūhoe, the former High Court judge Sir Rodney Gallen. I know that the interests are being renegotiated at the moment. The background to the lake bed issue doesn’t reflect very well on the Crown at all, and there was a resolution of sorts in 1970, I think, but generosity of spirit meant that both Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāi Tūhoe compromised, as they always do, for the Crown. I know that those issues are being looked at now. I am sure that the Wairoa Waikaremoana Māori Trust Board will have plenty to say about that in the fullness of time.

So it’s a good settlement. I commend the committee for the work it has done. It always amazes me when you hear members of the Māori Affairs Committee speak—anyone would think you walk in the room and there’s an outbreak of aroha, and that they work together famously, in comparison with the other select committees. All I can say is, yeah, right! We know that it was daggers drawn on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, and it looks as though that’s going to be botched up by the Government, and I’m very disappointed about that. But there you have it. That’s the way it goes. We’ll just have to re-enact the reform when we get back in in 18 months’ time. But, with those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Reo Māori i te tuatahi. Ko Takitimu te waka, engari ko te ingoa rangatira ko Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau, ko koutou ngā uri kua tatū mai ki waenga tonu i a mātou ngā kaitōrangapū, e noho, e whakawhitiwhiti, e whakahāngai nei i ō mātou whakaaro kia whiwhi ai koutou. Nā reira, Kahungungu ki Wairoa, ngā hapū katoa, Rongomaiwahine, koutou katoa kei roto i tēnā pito o te whare tapu o Takitimu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

Kei ahau kei a Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu he waiata. Ko tētahi whiti o tēnā waiata e pā ana ki tō koutou tupuna ki a Timi Kara; he pēnei kē tēnei waiata: waiata. Te kaupapa, te tikanga o tēnā waiata te haerenga mai o tō koutou matua a Timi Kara ki waenga tonu i a mātau o Te Whare Tapu o Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu. Ko te take ōna i tatū mai ai tēnā hautupua o te ao tōrangapū i taua wā, he whakahoki i te tūpāpaku o tō mātau tupuna a Hone Heke Ngapua ka mate ki Te Whare Pāremata i a ia e mana ana hei mema mō Te Taitokerau ki tēnei Whare. Ka mate ka whakahokia, ka takoto ki tētahi wharehui ko tōna ingoa ko Te Kotahitanga. I reira e auē ana, e uhunga ana a Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu. Nā, ka tanumia te tūpāpaku ka tū mai te māmā o Hone Heke Ngapua, he wahine taipairu nō Ngāpuhi, tana ingoa ko Niurangi Pūriri. Nāna i kī mā wai te pouaru e manaaki, kāhore he wahine wā Hone Heke Ngapua, kotahi anake tana wahine ko te tūru Māori, ko te tūru o Te Taitokerau.

Tere te tū mai o te kaumātua rā a Timi Kara me te nui o tana mana ka ngohengohe mai a Ngāpuhi ki a ia. Nāna te kī, kei ahau te tangata hei whakakapi i tēnā tūranga, ko tōna ingoa ko Te Rangihīroa. Ko Te Rangihīroa o Taranaki, he rata i tērā wā. Me i kore a Timi Kara mai i Te Wairoa i hari i te tūpāpaku ki waenga tonu i a Ngāpuhi ngaro ai, kua kore a Te Rangihīroa e tū hei māngai Māori mō te tūru o Te Taitokerau ki tēnei Whare huango. Nā reira ahau ka mihi atu ki a koutou ngā uri o ngā hapū katoa i puta ai tēnā kaumātua rongonui a Timi Kara. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[I will speak in Māori first. Although the waka is Takitimu, the name of significance is Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau, you are the descendants that have arrived amongst us, the politicians, as we sit, dialogue, and focus our thoughts so that you may benefit. Therefore, Kahungungu ki Wairoa, all of the hapū, Rongomaiwahine, and all those from the many places of the sacred house of Takitimu, greetings, greetings to us all.

I, Ngāpuhi, have a waiata. One verse of that waiata addresses your ancestor, James Carroll; the waiata goes like this: waiata. The purpose and meaning of this waiata is of the time that your elder James Carroll travelled to be amongst us, the people of the sacred house of Ngāpuhi. The reason that this great man of the political world travelled there was to return the body of our elder Hone Heke Ngapua, who died in Parliament during his time as a member of Parliament for the North. Upon his death, he was returned and laid in state at a meeting house called Te Kotahitanga. All of Ngāpuhi had congregated there to mourn and weep for him. After the burial, the mother of Hone Heke Ngapua stood up, her name was Niurangi Pūriri and she was a woman of high rank in Ngāpuhi. She asked who will now look after the widow, as Hone Heke Ngapua had no wife, the only wife he had was the Māori seat, the Northern seat.

James Carroll was quick to stand and respond, he was respected in Ngāpuhi and they had a lot of time for him. He informed them that he had someone who could fill the vacant seat, whose name was Te Rangihīroa, Sir Peter Buck, from Taranaki, who was a doctor at the time. If it was not for James Carroll from Te Wairoa who returned the deceased back to Ngāpuhi, Te Rangihīroa would never have become the Māori representative for the Northern seat of this House. So I thank you all, the descendants of all the hapū that gave us this renowned elder, James Carroll. Greetings, greetings to all.]

This is the second time that I have followed the former Minister of Treaty settlements, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. Much of what he has done has been truly profound, and nowhere did he do anywhere as well as what he did with Tūhoe. For those of us who have been on this journey since we were teenagers—of the Treaty, Māori rights, activism, and on and on it goes—what he managed to get the then National Government to do for Tūhoe was truly staggering.

But I can assure him, if he has been adopted by Tūhoe, that pleasure will never await him in the land of Ngāpuhi. It’s highly likely that “Ānaru Paku”, our new Minister, may achieve that status, but, as I said in my last speech, that would require him to duck and be very agile.

Naturally, I stand to support this bill. These settlements amongst our iwi in the more isolated parts of Aotearoa New Zealand are very challenging. I say that as someone who comes from north of Kaitāia, equally as isolated as Te Wairoa. But for the people of Wairoa who have whakapapa to this area, I want to make you a promise. The provincial fund - regional development Minister with delegated authority for KiwiRail is coming to work with your regional council and reopen the railway from Wairoa to Napier. Now, when that happens, I expect the Rātana band to be in Wairoa to welcome me. And when that happens, we will make a tremendous day of it, because the challenges for these groups in provincial New Zealand don’t diminish just because we are affirming both the ills and the course of our history but they carry on well after the passage of this legislation.

Recently, I had occasion to go to Wairoa and to meet with the mayor—I think his name is Mr Craig Little, if I’m not mistaken. Am I correct, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon SHANE JONES: Right. He described me as the first politician who had been there with the right spirit since Muldoon—both a curse and a blessing. But to the whānau from Wairoa, please seize the opportunities to work with whoever is in Government—whoever is in Government—to work in such a way that we build upon these historical redresses and that we collaborate and work with our neighbours.

As you know, formerly I was the chairman of the fisheries commission, and there were two elements that were never fully dealt with when we settled the historical fisheries claim. One was the interests of Rongomaiwahine and second was the desire of the Ngāti Hine hapū to become their own people, like Ngāti Wai as a broader part of the Ngāpuhi. The Rongomaiwahine, to the best of my knowledge, was finally settled between the Kahungunu people themselves. To the extent that that’s actually the truth, I salute you, because there are huge challenges when you look from Te Wairoa up to Tūtira, from Wairarapa through to Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa.

We are very keen to see these developments take place on the back of historical redress, but we cannot provide the leadership as parliamentarians. We can highlight things, we can advocate for things, but after the settlement is done, the leadership lies fairly and squarely with the people who are the descendants of the tūpuna, who were wronged and are the owners of the resources. That leadership will grow in its richness when we think beyond the shadow of our own mountains and we take a wider, more expansive view about how these settlements can actually enrich the broader area. So I salute the mahi that’s been done, acknowledge the leadership of the former Minister, and acknowledge also our new Treaty Minister, Mr Andrew Little.

These things—occasionally, we do get excited as politicians. Certain things might annoy us about them, but, broadly speaking, all parliamentarians realise that it’s coming to the end of an era that can be traced back to when Dame Whina Cooper led the great hīkoi called the matakite. After that, the Treaty of Waitangi legislation emerged and it was gradually improved, and once one of three of the big remaining groups are settled, that portion of our recent legal, social, cultural history will not so much come to an end, but morph into something else.

We are adamant that as Māori endeavour grows on the back of these settlements, it has to enrich not only us as Māori but the overarching country. That’s why we’re doing this, and that’s why it’s important that Māori leadership, through these settlements, contribute to enriching our overall identity. If we don’t do that, what was the purpose anyway? It’s certainly miles away from what I’m sure the ancestor Timi Kara—who I’ve just referred to in our Māori language—would have had in mind, or Sir Apirana Ngata or, indeed, my matua the Hon Matiu Rata, who was the architect of the original Treaty of Waitangi tribunal legislation.

We salute the people, the hapū, of that part of Tākitimu waka. We wish you well, and acknowledge the work that was done by the Māori Affairs Committee and, in particular, the former Minister. Tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa ngā whānui o ngā hapū, o ngā iwi o ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Wairoa. Nau mai, haere mai ki te Pāremata i tēnei rā. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all, the hapū and iwi of the Wairoa region. I welcome you to Parliament today. Greetings to you all.]

I’m pleased to stand to take a brief call in the second reading of the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill. As the previous Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, said, yes, I did accompany him to the signing of the deed at Tākitimu Marae in Wairoa—it was last year. The day was hot and dusty, but, I tell you, within the area that we were signing your deed there was just such warmth and aroha for the occasion. So I thank you for that.

Most of the things that came out of the submission process—because I was not privileged enough to travel to Wairoa to listen the submissions that were spoken to. All of the main areas that there were issues on were debated at that submission process. Really, at the end of the day, as I stand here, I just want to acknowledge the work, as the previous Minister has just spoken about, that has gone on to actually get you here and to this second reading. I noted in my first reading speech that I felt that the process was running pretty quickly, and I think that if we’d had more time we would have actually been able to cut it straight to a third reading fairly quickly as well. But, no doubt, come 2018, your bill will reach the Royal assent and you will be able to just carry on growing your economic development—social and cultural areas as well.

I think it’s really great that the Minister for regional development is committed to opening up the railway line between Wairoa and Gisborne. I just want to say to that Minister that while he’s there he may as well set up a forestry tree-growing company with you as well, maybe in partnership with you, while you get some of your people back from the cities and back home to actually start growing that side of your economic development—forestry.

Without much further ado, at the end of the day, as I said when I started, a lot of kōrero has happened around the issues through the submissions process. I acknowledge all the work that’s gone on before we got here, and I really acknowledge the work that will go on into the future. Really, at the end of the day, it is about future leadership. It is about nurturing the future leadership of our iwi and making sure that you have enough really good people, not only from within the iwi but from outside the iwi as well, to come along and actually help you to grow your economic development once the claims are settled. I’ve noted that most of the iwi have used outside influences—those who are skilled—to bring in those skills and to help you to actually train from within.

So yes, without any further ado, I stand to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. He mihi kau ana tēnei ki ngā uri o ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Wairoa: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge the descendants of the hapū of the region of Wairoa: greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

It’s a great honour for me to be able to stand and speak on behalf of the Green Party in this, the second reading of the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill. I’m our new Te Tiriti spokesperson for Pākehā, and I’ve got to say that I think that when these settlement processes come through the House, I see the House at its best. It is a great honour and a privilege to be able to participate in this process, which has been the result of such a long struggle for iwi and hapū and which presents such an opportunity for learning and understanding for Pākehā and for the Crown.

I would just like to say that for the Green Party, we always—at each stage of this—acknowledge that the settlements, which are being so hard fought for and debated, are debated and negotiated under the pressure of economic and social hardship and within the constraints of a Crown-imposed process to make the best deal possible in order to re-establish an economic base for your people. You’ve done well to get the fifth-largest settlement. I know the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said it was the fourth, but my understanding is that it is the fifth—and I know it’s a brave thing to contest the previous Minister. It is a very significant outcome, and I want to acknowledge you for that.

I also acknowledge the limitations, which I think were so clearly put and have already been mentioned by the previous chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, around Te Wairoa Tāpokorau Cluster 1 submission of the actual value and what was taken. I really want to thank that group for bringing that submission, which really outlined to us the limitless possibility of this process, as opposed to the possibility that has been constrained by the ongoing restrictions of the Crown—the full return of the land and the actual full financial redress, which this is not. But this is a phenomenal achievement within the system that you have been given. I do want to acknowledge, as a person standing in the place as tangata Tiriti, that we have a responsibility in relation to the constraints that have been put on you and on all other iwi around the country, and that is for us to be engaging with, in this House and in the country as a whole, to shift those boundaries and to open up those constraints.

For me, in these debates, I always come back to the comparison with South Canterbury Finance when they went into receivership and to the Government bailout of $1.6 billion to I don’t know how many people for a harm that was in such a short period of time, compared to this, the pain of generations and so much loss and so much harm. Relative to that is the $100 million, which is a phenomenal result in this context. I feel aroha in speaking to this.

I do also want to acknowledge the fact that this has been an over 30-year journey in the negotiation to get to this point. You know, we’re going back to the 1850s and 1860s for the original harm, but the actual negotiation to get us to this point has been over 30 years, and that is from when the claim was first lodged as part of the Waitangi Tribunal Wairoa inquiry district. You know, that’s more than my adult life that people in your iwi have been locked in negotiation and unable to move forward. That in itself, to me, is a wrong that I want to acknowledge here in this House.

I also want to acknowledge the negotiators and all who supported them through this arduous process, particularly those who have passed before seeing this outcome. That too is a pain in itself that has, again, been inflicted by the Crown’s processes.

So I would like to—and I guess this, for me, is more speaking specifically to any Pākehā that may be watching these speeches or looking at them—just want to go over a little bit of that history, because it is not taught in our schools. It is so inherent and felt by tangata whenua in this country and is often not even known about by Pākehā, so I do just briefly want to speak to some tiny bits of that history and what was done, to help further our understanding, which is an opportunity in this process.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that the Crown didn’t take Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, so the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa did not sign Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Even those who did sign, we know through court rulings, did not cede sovereignty, but that is particularly true for Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. Despite the Crown being able to have not seen iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa at that time, somehow they managed to notice them when there was land to be taken. Between 1864 and 1868, the Crown purchased—and I do love that use of language in these settlements, which again, to me, is another sign of that colonisation process still happening; it is the limitations on language and the “re-truth”, or the new truth, that is being created by the Crown—83,000 acres. They didn’t survey the blocks to investigate who actually owned that land and who had customary rights, and they didn’t set aside the adequate reserves that they were supposed to. I think another way of describing that process is that they scammed and they stole.

Then, when there was fighting in other regions in the 1860s, the iwi and hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa actively maintained peace within that region. We have that history in other parts of Aotearoa, which I think is often forgotten, where the violence of the Crown was countered by peace in the iwi and hapū groups. They struggled to maintain that peace, and war in this region began only when the Crown attacked Omaruharakeke kāinga on Christmas Day. As we are on our last day of this House sitting before rising for Christmas, I think it is for me quite present that thought of an attack on that day. Those who were then engaged in defending themselves, in the mid-1860s, were captured and summarily executed or detained without trial on the Chathams.

This was done by the Crown, who, traditionally, in this country and around the world has spoken of itself as the upholder of justice. That was a particular breach, and in the myth of that, it has continued that breach, and more and more land was taken.

This settlement is an acknowledgment of that and recognition of your pain and loss and struggle. While that economic base was removed, there was harm and there was attachment that was way beyond the economics of it—a huge impact on the potential of the people, to the point that 90 percent of the tribe and hapū now live outside of the area. That severing of relationship, which was a result of this, has continued, and we hope that as the settlement goes to the next stages, some of that is able to be turned round. I do remember, in the submissions, that there was the hope and acknowledgment that in accepting this, it’s the opportunity to move forward, and the Green Party wishes you all the luck in that. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora e Te Māngai. E tika ana ki te tautoko te kōrero o te tuahine, ngā mihi ki a koutou te Rōpū Kākāriki. Me hoki e tika ki te tautoko te kōrero a Shane Jones i tēnei rā. Nō reira ko tēnei te mihi ki a koutou ngā uri o Te Wairoa, he nui te mamae me te pōuri nā te ringa kaha o te Karauna e pā mai ana ki a koutou i ngā tau kua hipa atu nei. Kei konei koutou ki te rongo atu i ngā waha kōrero o Te Whare Pāremata ki te whakarite, tū, tautoko hoki, te whakatau i te nawe me te mamae e pīkautia e koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to support what my colleague has just said and thank the Green Party. It is also appropriate that I endorse Shane Jones’ comments today. I acknowledge the people of Te Wairoa, who have experienced great pain and sorrow due to the heavy handedness of the Crown over the years. You have come here to listen to the speakers of Parliament deliberate, support, and settle the grievance and pain that you have carried. So I greet you all.]

I am not sure if I can add a lot. I think some of the kōrero today from both sides has been terrific, particularly contributions from the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Meka Whaitiri, in giving the outline, the background, and the history—and the previous kōrero too from our Green colleague there. It’s excellent to hear that type of kōrero from Pākehā members, so ngā mihi ki a koe e te tuahine [thank you, sister].

In terms of the mihi to the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, from the Hon Shane Jones, it was excellent. Thank goodness the Hon Winston Peters wasn’t in the room when that mihi was given, given the scandalous type of kōrero that’s been put out there from the former Minister about our Deputy Prime Minister. But it is true to compliment the former Minister for what he did in Tūhoe, because getting our people to agree on anything in these areas is particularly tough. I know that we’ve had a number of people, particularly from Ngāti Ruapani, who are very, very upset with that settlement, but what do you do? The Treaty settlement process in many ways is flawed. It’s a flawed process that we’ve all bought into. In fact, former top businessman Hugh Fletcher said some years ago that to negotiate a deal for less than 1.5 percent is a deal that he would never enter into.

So it should be noted, the generosity of Māori with regard to these types of settlements. It’s a generosity that New Zealanders many times ignore. You had Ngāi Tahu—as my colleague and whanaunga here, Rino Tirikatene, knows—settle for $160 million. Tainui settled for $160 million. If you looked at the economic cases around Tainui and Ngāi Tahu, the economists valued those settlements at $20 billion—$20 billion. And our people are settling these deals at $160 million? So the gratitude from the nation to Māori, in my view, has been minimal—minimal—through the years, given the substantial contribution and sacrifice that our people have made. But our people have no choice. Our people have no choice. You settle or you get nothing. You talk or you go to the back of the queue, like Whakatōhea did some years ago.

So it’s an unforgiving process, and I’m not here to condemn any side. We’re all part of this process, and if there was a better process, we’d get into it. But I just need to commend our people for what they do: for getting down to Wellington and for going through a process where an apology is everything to a people. An apology honours those who have gone and honours those who’ve contributed. So many of our people don’t see the benefits from these settlements, but we’re getting there—we’re getting there. So I say well done—well done to people who’ve contributed to this, on both sides: the former Māori Affairs Committee chair, the current select committee chair, the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiation, and the current Minister. I know, particularly, when we go through the select committee process, the Māori Affairs Committee does stand out in terms of the collegial work on both sides, and the kotahitanga that is worked through from both sides. So I just want to commend everyone in terms of the contribution made and the support made. Well done to the negotiators. E tika kia mihi ki a tātau i tēnei wā, ā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[It is appropriate to acknowledge everyone today.]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Rino Tirikatene—this is a five-minute call.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ka pai. I’m pleased to speak on the second reading of this bill, the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill, and I’ve enjoyed the contributions thus far. I wasn’t a member of the Māori Affairs Committee in the 51st Parliament, but I do want to acknowledge the work of the previous chair Tutehounuku Korako and all the members of that committee, because I think what was evident in the debates today was the effort and the detail that they go into in scrutinising the legislation and in considering all of the submitters and the issues that have arisen through that process.

If we look to this bill, there are some issues that did arise, and I’m hopeful that we can see some progress on those matters, if not in this legislation, then certainly some way, somehow, in the future. In particular, I’m referring to the Hereheretau Station. One can only imagine how the Whakakī hapū must feel—the magnanimous gesture that they made in gifting that massive, massive sheep and beef station for the benefit of returned soldiers, but with very little, if any, benefit coming back to the descendants of the owners of that mighty agribusiness, Māori agribusiness. So I certainly hope that Te Tumu Paeroa, the administrator of the trust, and the hapū can come to some resolution of that, because it just doesn’t seem right that the hapū right at the heart of Whakakī are denied any real rights to their own farming businesses, which are a massive, massive farming enterprise at Hereheretau.

I just wanted to add my remarks on that particular point, because I understand that Whakakī is renowned for their eels—their tuna—and I certainly hope that there can be a big hākari at some stage with plenty of those tuna served up. Perhaps it may be when the Hon Shane Jones opens that rail line from Wairoa to Gisborne. I might even pull out my horn and my old Rātana blazer and blaze away with the band at that occasion.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: You heard it, folks.

RINO TIRIKATENE: It will be a treat. But I do want to refer back to what we’re here for. Yes, we are putting through this legislation at a second reading, but I like to think of the sense of anticipation that is in store for the hapū and the iwi of Te Wairoa in the future and that will unfold as a result of not only this piece of legislation but all of the collective efforts that have been going on. I think that’s evident from the collective group that forms te hapū me te iwi o Te Wairoa.

I’m not too familiar with Te Wairoa, but I do want to acknowledge, just in my remaining time, my uncle Kukupā Tirikātene, who was actually whāngai-ed to a whānau in Wairoa, and his grandmother was Pani Paata, whose husband was an August—Ākuhata. He’s māuiui at the moment, up there in Tāmaki, but I know that he has very strong ties to Wairoa and he always acknowledges his upbringing with his nan, as he called her, who raised not only him but many others from infancy.

So I guess through that connection there—it’s always nice to have a connection to the subject matter of the bill and to the illustrious iwi and hapū that this bill belongs to. So with that, I really commend this bill at its second reading and look forward to its progress. Kia ora tātou.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill. I do so as a National member of Parliament, a new member of Parliament but a member of Parliament to the south—that is, part of the mighty Hawke’s Bay. I do speak today as a member from the south, bearing in mind that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the member from the north, and there is a part in the middle that is not blue politically, although I do acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri for her rohe, which covers the East Coast. I acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little for shepherding this second reading into the House, the Hon Chris Finlayson for the work that had been done previously, all the officials that have been involved, and the people that are here today from Wairoa, Māhia, and Waikaremoana. They’ve all come here today for this second reading because it’s incredibly significant to them and it’s incredibly significant to Hawke’s Bay.

In my previous roles, I had watched the settlements proceed through this House of Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Hineuru, Maungaharuru-Tangitū, Heretaunga Tamatea, and Mana Ahuriri, which is still going through some processes. But it’s fair to say that, throughout that whole process, I’ve been incredibly impressed with the honour, respect, and dignity with which all claimant groups have put their case. We now have this particular bill in a process, really, of no return. It is going through—it’s being shepherded through the Parliament.

I am particularly impressed—and, obviously, members behind me will probably acknowledge and understand this—with the role that the Wairoa District Council is playing as part of this settlement and the role that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, as well, is playing as part of this settlement. I also want to acknowledge—and I specifically refer to the Hon Willie Jackson, who spoke previous to me—the generosity of spirit that is also being shown here by the people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. The generosity of spirit, where they would have land vested back to them and then gift it back to the Crown. I actually do not know of many non-Māori in New Zealand that would actually do that. It’s been my experience, as we work through the settlement process, that the apology is one thing, the forgiveness is another, and the financial and cultural redress is another. But there is a generosity of spirit right throughout all these processes, which all of us could learn from, and which many people in this House are experienced in. It’s a special part of being a New Zealander.

I also acknowledge the significant contribution that $100 million will make to this part of Hawke’s Bay—this part that probably has got some bigger challenges than many other parts of Hawke’s Bay. But $100 million, in partnership with local authority money, in partnership with some of the growth projects that this new Government is putting up, will make a significant contribution to Wairoa, and not before time.

There are a number of things that are not in this bill, but they are referenced in the documentation: a social and economic revitalisation strategy; letters of introduction to Wairoa District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council; a tripartite relationship between the Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa Trust, the Wairoa District Council, and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council; a relationship agreement with the Ministry for the Environment; a partnership agreement with the Department of Conservation; and a letter of commitment to the Department of Internal Affairs and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, as well as the $100 million. This is a massive opportunity for the northern part of my region, and I want to support colleagues right across the House in supporting the shepherding of this bill through its second reading.

Many members of this House will know that I was an avid supporter of amalgamation. It got thrown out. It got thrown out in spades by this part of Hawke’s Bay. I was trying to seek a way of addressing a whole lot of things, including economic prosperity in Wairoa. The stars have aligned between this settlement and some of the new initiatives that have been developed, and, as a member of the National Party, I’m hugely proud to support the second reading and its passing of this stage. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ka tīmata ahau ki roto i te reo Māori ka mutu ko te hiahia kia huri atu ahau ki te reo Pākehā, ā, taihoa ake nei. E tautoko ana i ngā mihi kua utaina ki runga i Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, ōna hapū, ōna mana, ōna kāwai hekenga kua tau ki runga i te tāhuhu o Te Whare i te rā nei.

E te pāpā e Piere, e hoki atu ngā mahara ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō ki roto i te tau kua pahure ake nei, mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Tangi hotuhotu te whatu manawa ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō, haere, haere, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou te hunga ora e ōku rangatira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. Pai te whakarongo atu ki ngā kōrero a tōku matua nei a te honore Tararā nei a Shane Jones. E harikoa ana te rongo atu i ngā whakapapa me ngā hītori hei tuitui i a tātou katoa i runga i te whakaaro nui o te whakapapa. Ka kī atu ahau ki a koutou, e ōku whanaunga, anei te uri a Te Wera Hauraki kua roa rawa e noho ki roto i a koutou. Ka pupuru tonu e tōku whānau i Te Nihoniho, te taonga hohou rongo i tukuna atu e koutou ki tōku tupuna a Te Wera Hauraki e hia tau ki muri. Nō reira, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai, kati. Ka huri atu ahau ki te reo tuarua.

[I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker. I will begin by speaking in Māori and it is my wish to conclude in English soon. I endorse the acknowledgments given to Te Wairoa, its hapū, its mana, and lineage who have graced this House today.

Piere, my thoughts return to those who have passed during this year, since the first reading of this bill up until this moment. My heart grieves for them, farewell to you all.

I return my discussion to us, the living; to you, my leaders, I acknowledge you all. It was pleasing to listen to my uncle, the honourable Dalmatian Shane Jones. I enjoyed listening to the origins and history that connects us all together through our whakapapa. I say to you, my relatives, here I stand before you as the descendant of Te Wera Hauraki, who for a very long time has been amongst you. My people still hold the treasure Te Nihoniho, the treasure of peace that you gave to my ancestor Te Wera Hauraki those many years ago. So welcome, welcome, welcome. I will now speak in the second language.]

It is probably more for the benefit of the new members of the House that it’s important that we actually take the full calls on these bills, in particular in the second reading, so that new members see we are duty-bound to give rigorous debate and analysis to such an important issue for the people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and, of course, for the House here and members across the House. It’s in that vein that I want to turn to some of the matters that were raised to the Māori Affairs Committee in the process of the hearing of submissions. I was, unfortunately, unable to attend the ceremony that was attended by the member Jo Hayes and, of course, the former Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, in the year just gone. I was, in fact, with my good colleague here, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, at the unveiling for her father, who passed the year previous.

I want to acknowledge the member the Hon Meka Whaitiri for her work on—and she mentioned it in her contribution—Māori land ownership and the ability to use the resource for our own means, to make sure that the benefits that come from such lands and such resources actually go to the people who are the descendants of those who either held the land or gifted the land for a particular reason, and it’s in this vein that I talk about the station Hereheretau. Members across the House talked about the need to nurture leadership, to grow leadership to make sure that the seeds, first of all, that are sown with bills such as these, the fruits of those seeds can actually be harnessed, be utilised to grow for future generations.

I found it interesting in my discussion with the Hon Meka Whaitiri how, for many years, scholarships that came from the station of Hereheretau actually, for the most part, didn’t go to the descendants of those who held the land before it was given to help the soldiers who returned from World War I. That’s an important fact to remember—which is why the contention, which is why the submissions on this particular matter, and the urging of this House, if I can, to make sure that whatever happens with te Hereheretau into the future, long after we’re gone, we actually remember that it is there for the benefit of the descendants of those who actually gifted the land. It’s an important point to remember.

I also want to turn to the issue that I’ve raised many, many times in this House, and I think it’s just as relevant in my time in Opposition as in my time in Government, and that is the pitfalls of legislation in dealing with whakapapa. My colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri mentioned the pitfalls when we look to legislation to define who we are—to define who is a hapū, to define who is an iwi—and the member the Hon Shane Jones mentioned it in his former life as the fisheries commissioner and as a man who did a great deal to get the fisheries settlement across the line. He mentioned, of course, my people of Ngāti Hine. And I’m proud to say that after many years of litigation, we now find ourselves on the census and on the pathway to becoming our own iwi, which, by definition—by the way, that’s the census next year. So all of you Ngāti Hine out there, please get on and tick that Ngāti Hine box.

But if you look at the purposes of the legislation and the definition of what a hapū and what an iwi are, you’ll find that most of us, and in particular in my case of Ngāti Hine, met that particular set of terms many, many years ago—many years ago. You needed to have marae, you needed to have an eponymous ancestor, you needed to have a large natural grouping, and you also needed to have the agreement of surrounding iwi. Well, I’m sure most Māori in this particular House today will say, “Aye, I’ve got a marae. Yes, I’ve got a marae. Yes, I’ve got a natural grouping. Yes, I’ve got an eponymous ancestor. And, by crikey, my neighbour had better agree.”

These are the pitfalls that legislation forces Māori into, and it’s a shame. But I am encouraged by the work of many of the people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa, and other tribes across the country, who actually want to work together and reconnect, legislation aside. And that’s an important thing to remember. We do that by way of waiata, wānanga, mahi tahi, working together for the benefit not of our generation but of our tamariki mokopuna. I’ve seen a pēpē up in the gallery, and it’s for them we do this particular job.

I won’t go on too much longer, because the House has already canvassed many of the issues that have come from this, but I want to reiterate my point, in particular in the second reading, for new members: let’s make sure we give these bills the rigorous debate and the respect that they deserve, acknowledging too that Te Rohe o Te Wairoa and the whānau from Te Wairoa have come a long way to hear the House debate these particular bills, and make sure that at the third reading, the bill that we started with in the first reading will be stronger, will be more robust, to ensure that future generations will reap the benefits sown in these readings.

So, without further ado, I look forward to this bill progressing and, once again, acknowledge all of those whose fingerprints are over this bill, both in this House and, of course, in and amongst the people of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa. Kāti ki konei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[I conclude here. Thank you all.]

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.13 p.m. (Wednesday)