Thursday, 22 March 2018

THURSDAY, 22 MARCH 2018

THURSDAY, 22 MARCH 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week, the House will complete the third readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill will have its second reading and committee stage. There will first readings of the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, the Privacy Bill, the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, and the Coroners (Access to Body of a Dead Person) Amendment Bill. The Hon Steven Joyce will make his valedictory statement at 5.40 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 March.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I notice that the bill that’s just been introduced, the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, seeks to implement some changes in a very short time frame. When is the Government going to stop ramming things through a select committee in a shortened time frame and give New Zealanders a real opportunity to consider legislation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It’s interesting that the member raises that. On one day we hear from the Opposition there’s not enough legislation; on another day we hear there’s too much. I’d just encourage Mr Jami-Lee Ross to up his game, up his work rate, and get on with the job.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Statements

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): on behalf of the Prime Minister: Could I just say kia ora tēnā koutou katoa to the people of Parihaka, and also could I say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, in their context.

Hon Paula Bennett: Wonderful. Which statement best describes her Government’s position on oil and gas exploration: is it her statement that “We’re considering everything.” when receiving a Greenpeace petition to ban exploration, or is it her deputy’s statement that “we know exactly where this is going. We will not compromise on what we’ve agreed.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Those are two brilliant statements—both correct. First of all, only an idiot wouldn’t consider everything, or as the British say, “Only a fool tests the water with both feet.” The second thing is, we know what our policy was and what we agreed on, and we are working our way through the fulfilment of it, and you will know in a few months’ time.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is it her usual practice to say one thing to a group like Greenpeace and then backtrack a few hours later when she’s in a post-Cabinet press conference?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What is the normal practice for the Prime Minister—and invariably so—is to know what words mean and to be very careful about them. Nothing she said in front of Greenpeace or later is contradictory if interpreted the way it was said—honestly and carefully and not maliciously. Then the member will see, and so will her colleagues and those shouting fools at the back, who are down the back because they are useless—had every chance of being promoted but they’re back there, never going any further. In fact, the back is no longer back; it’s gone. Could I just say, the Prime Minister very carefully chose her words and she has been very accurate and correct about them.

Hon Paula Bennett: So, if the Prime Minister chooses her words so carefully, which statement, then, best reflects her Government’s position on the Air New Zealand board: is it Shane Jones’ statement calling for the sacking of the chair, her statement that Shane Jones shouldn’t have called for the sacking of the chair, Shane Jones’ later statement that he will not be muzzled, or Winston Peters, who said that Shane Jones was right?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the Prime Minister is correct in the sense that it is for one member of Cabinet in particular, surrounded by his 19 very wise colleagues to make this decision. In that sense, the Prime Minister is utterly correct. But as for criticising or questioning a State-owned enterprise, or a company of that nature, that is entirely proper. In the same way, I’m certain that the Blues rugby supporters in Auckland are questioning his chairmanship of the Blues board after three years of dismal failure, celebrated by all the rest of the provinces, but not Aucklanders. And last of all—this is a very difficult refuge for me to take—it is the Dominion Post editorial today saying Jones has again inspired worthy debate. And debate inspires and invigorates a robust democracy. So, in that sense, I agree with all three comments.

Hon Paula Bennett: That’s great. Does she stand by her statement made on Morning Report that she is committed to a 100,000 reduction in the number of children living in poverty under the 50 percent of median income measure by 2020?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I could say that—I didn’t hear the Prime Minister’s comments this morning, but I would think that what she was accurately setting out was the Government’s plan, because it is a most ambitious one and one that already is achieving enormous results. Not like, for example, the statement which disputed the number of a target for child poverty, which is what John Key did when she was in her portfolio as Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: Which statement is correct: her deputy’s statement that there is no evidence Russia was involved in the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, or her statement correcting him less than a week later?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that is false as to the correction. The reality right now is there is full-scale inquiry going on in Holland as to the perpetrator of that missile being triggered off. That’s a fact.

Hon Member: They’ve tabled the report.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re not going to listen to amateur backbenchers of the National Party making up the law as they go along. If we are not right about that, why is there a full-scale inquiry being conducted in Holland as we speak on that matter?

Hon Paula Bennett: Why was her statement on the Salisbury attacks changed on the Beehive website, or is this just another secret document that was shortened by changing the font?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I believe that a staff member made a mistake and corrected it.

Hon Members: Oh!

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, look, members can jeer and scoff, but honesty is our main feature. I went to find out whether there was any truth in that matter, and that’s what the Prime Minister told me, and I believe her. But it got as far as Theresa May, the Prime Minister of the UK, who contacted us to thank us profusely for it.

Fiscal Strategy—Investment Statement 2018

2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What does the Treasury’s 2018 Investment Statement show about the state of the Government’s balance sheet?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The 2018 Investment Statement shows that, as at 30 June 2017, the Government owned $314 billion worth of assets and owed $197 billion worth of liabilities, resulting in a net worth of $117 billion. As part of producing the Investment Statement, Treasury conducted three stress tests to show how the Government would be able to handle major adverse shocks, including a major Wellington earthquake, a widespread agricultural disease outbreak, or an international economic downturn. The results show that the Government’s balance sheet has some resilience to meet these shocks, given a commitment to careful management of the Government’s finances and net debt position.

Dr Deborah Russell: What does the Investment Statement show about the condition of the Government’s assets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, unfortunately, the statement does not paint such a rosy picture in this regard. The statement shows that 38.6 percent of assets in the social portfolio, including schools and hospitals, have aged to a point where they are adversely impacting the ability of the Government to provide public services. Approximately 40 percent of the assets in the social housing portfolio are more than 50 years old, district health boards are reporting that 19 percent of their assets are in either poor or very poor condition, and 38 percent of school buildings are at least 50 years old. This is not good enough. This Government has inherited an infrastructure deficit, and we will do something to address that, to make sure that New Zealanders’ investments are working for everybody.

Dr Deborah Russell: How will Investment Statements evolve in the future?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The future Investment Statements will incorporate a more holistic view of the Government’s investments, as Treasury continues to develop and apply its living standards framework. I am pleased to see, in the 2018 statement, that Treasury has focused on how people value natural capital and environmental quality. Future Investment Statements will outline approaches that account for the value of New Zealand’s social and human capital as well. I look forward to seeing this work progress as we move towards having a Government that puts the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders at the heart of everything that we do.

Fiscal Strategy—Capital Expenditure and Debt

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: How much capital expenditure is this Government forecast to spend in the period 2018-2022 compared to the previous Government over these same years, and how much of the difference is funded by an increase in debt?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): According to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU), this Government is forecast to invest $41.7 billion through net capital spending over the next five years. On the basis of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU), the previous Government’s final five-year plan forecast $30.5 billion of net capital spending to June 2021. The previous Government’s published forecasts do not go out to 2022.

In answer to the second part of the question, Governments have always handled capital and operating spending through a mixture of revenue and debt, and there is no breakdown of which type is used for the various operating and capital projects that we are investing in.

Hon Amy Adams: Do we take it from the Minister’s answer to the primary question that he is unaware that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2017, in the Fiscal Strategy Model, does show the previous Government’s planned capital spending over the period 2018 to 2022; and, in fact, that the value of that spending over the same period used by the Minister is in fact $33 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to page 34 of the PREFU, entitled “Core Crown Capital Spending”, which shows a table that goes from 2017 to 2021, a five-year period representing $30.5 billion.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very straight question which referred to the PREFU Fiscal Strategy Model. Quoting some other part of the PREFU doesn’t answer that question. It was a very specific question about a very specific part of the PREFU—whether or not he was aware of it. Simply referring to something else entirely doesn’t address that.

SPEAKER: If it was a primary question, I would have insisted that the Minister answer it, but when members bring relatively detailed areas from quite a general question, I don’t think there is an expectation that Ministers know every chart of a previous Government’s document.

Hon Amy Adams: In his answer to question No. 3 in the House on Tuesday, when he claimed that the previous National Government was spending $30.5 billion in capital over the next five years, why did he deliberately use different time periods to compare the spending intentions of the previous and current Governments given that this information was available to him in the PREFU 2017?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I did was compare this Government’s five-year plan to the last Government’s five-year plan. In the period for which we are responsible, we’re going to be investing the best part of $42 billion. You know, the member can find another table in the PREFU that might say $33 billion rather than $30 billion. What that makes clear is this Government is investing significantly more, whichever number she uses.

Hon Amy Adams: Are the specific financial years he used to compare the previous Government spending and the current Government spending the same?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I just answered that in the last question. I used the five years that we are responsible for and the five years that the previous Government were responsible for. I’m surprised the member thinks that this is the big hit of her first week as Opposition spokesperson.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Amy Adams: Given that on a direct comparison of time periods, the number the Minister gave to this House on Tuesday was out by more than $2.8 billion, why should New Zealand have any confidence in him as the Minister of Finance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealanders will have confidence in me as the Minister of Finance, and in this Government, because we are going to make the investments in our hospitals and schools to make sure that they are not run down and aged, and that previous Government should take a look at itself in the mirror and ask itself: why did those things happen? Because they failed to invest in the capital needs of New Zealand.

Hon Amy Adams: Why does he keep claiming he is simply paying down debt more slowly when he is in fact increasing New Zealand’s debt by $10 billion in just three years, from $59 billion last year to $69 billion by 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I am claiming is that we will reduce net debt as a percentage of GDP to 20 percent within five years of taking office, the same measure that the previous Government used; the measure of percentage of GDP. The previous Government never used the cash measure. What we are saying is, yes, there may be a little more borrowing in the short term so we build some houses and actually repair our schools and hospitals.

Economy—Government Policies

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does this Government have a broad economic development strategy; if so, what is it?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, and I thank the member for the patsy question. The new Government wants equality of opportunity and more equal outcomes, no matter your circumstance at birth or where you live. We aim to diversify our export base and move from volume to value. We want to change the investment signal so more capital goes towards the productive economy rather than unproductive speculation. This is in contrast to the Opposition’s growth model of weak per capita growth, housing speculation, poorly targeted immigration, and a fake surplus achieved by not paying the bills for infrastructure or maintenance, leaving our cities clogged and our regions hollowed out. The productive economy under the last—

SPEAKER: No, no. I think that’s probably more than enough, actually.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why doesn’t creating the conditions for continued private sector investment feature in his strategy, given that that investment ultimately drives development?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve now got a problem because I stopped the Minister part-way through his strategy. I’ll let the Minister answer it, but I now apologise because I didn’t realise where the member was going.

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re not. Indeed, we’re going to fix that problem in New Zealand because under the past Government the productive economy was languishing. Exports dropped from 30 percent to 27 percent of GDP after nine years of the last Government aiming to lift them to 40 percent of GDP. Like the member for Northcote, New Zealanders have said goodbye to this mess. Under this Government we’re going to be more prosperous and a fairer country.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister accept that business confidence levels have an impact on private sector investment?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, the trend does. The latest ANZ business survey shows business confidence on the rise. The other point I would make is that I was at a recent presentation by one of the most senior bank economists who showed that business confidence surveys have a selection bias because the respondents predominantly lean towards National. New Zealand’s economic growth, which is the best indicator of economic performance, has on average been higher under Labour than under National Governments—an average that goes back all the way to World War II.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe that personal attacks on business leaders, such as we’ve seen from his colleague Mr Jones, will help arrest falling business confidence levels?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The editorial that the Deputy Prime Minister referred to answers that question as to whether that’s appropriate, but I would further note that I’ve seen reports from another MP last week describing Air New Zealand’s decisions as shocking, short-sighted, hypocritical, and saying the company is guilty of deception. That MP was his front-bench mate, the Hon Nathan Guy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think ceasing all oil and gas exploration would help New Zealand’s economic development?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The last block offer resulted in one successful bid. Decisions on future block offers have not yet been taken, but it’s clear that even if they were to slow down or stop, the previously opened block offers remain open for development and, as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change said yesterday, that transition takes decades. He should listen to his own leader, who says that we need that transition to start.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think the Government’s proposed overseas investment rules will increase foreign investment in New Zealand and thereby help New Zealand’s economic development?

Hon DAVID PARKER: They will ensure that New Zealand homes and farms are owned by New Zealanders, so that we are not tenants in our own country. In respect of other areas of non-housing non-farm expenditure, announcements will be coming next week which will show that we will be facilitating further foreign direct investment in the forest industry. Growth rates under this Government, like under prior Labour-led Governments, this time in coalition with New Zealand First with the support of the Greens—we will beat the record of our predecessors.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think uncertainty about whether the Government intends to implement campaign promises on reducing immigration is helping to increase investment in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: One of the criticisms that the incoming Government has made of the last Government is that they had a model of growth that was built on greater population, rather than greater productivity. New Zealand has an appalling rate of productivity growth. That is caused by misallocation of capital, including into speculative asset classes rather than growing the points of comparative advantage we need. Where we need immigration, we will have it. It will be targeted, but we won’t have the low rates of per capita growth that the member seemed to be satisfied with when last in Government.

Question No. 1 to Minister

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In an answer to question No. 1, the Minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister talked about MH17 and Russia, talked about Holland and a report. So I’d seek the leave of the House to table two reports—final reports—from the Government of Holland: a technical report on the downing of MH17 on 13 October 2015 and a criminal report on 20 September 2016.

SPEAKER: Source?

SIMON O’CONNOR: They’re on the internet and available, but I thought it would be useful for the member to have read them.

SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that he cannot table those documents and, because of the long precedent, he is trifling with the Chair and that results in the loss of two questions to the National Party.

Hon Members: Oh!

SPEAKER: Order! And they just got them back as a result of the commentary from the right.

Earthquake Commission—Operational Changes

5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What announcements has the Government made about changes to how the Earthquake Commission operates?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): This week, I announced that Cabinet has approved a range of changes to the Earthquake Commission (EQC), which will improve how the Act functions and enable the scheme to work more effectively for claimants in future natural disasters. The changes are increasing the cap limit on EQC’s residential building cover to $150,000 plus GST, enabling EQC to accept claim notifications for up to two years after a natural disaster rather than the current three-month time limit for such notifications, removing EQC insurance cover for contents, and clarifying EQC’s authority to share information to support the implementation of the EQC Act and settlement of insurance claims where it is in the public interest and safety. This, of course, was a recommendation of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission.

Dr Duncan Webb: What will the impact of these changes be?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These changes simplify and speed up the claims process and resolve issues with the EQC Act that have been previously identified by the Ombudsman and the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. They will mean EQC is better placed to resolve claims in the event of future disasters.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why are these changes being made now and not following the Government’s already-indicated independent inquiry into EQC?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These are widely agreed and common-sense changes that have been discussed with EQC, private insurers, and Government officials. I’ve chosen to bring these forward so that if the worst did happen and we had a major event before the conclusion of the inquiry, and changes can be made following that, we would have made these immediate changes which we know will make a difference. There are the more complex and substantial issues that are appropriate for the independent inquiry to look at, and it is my intention that changes following that inquiry will be made in the future.

Prisons—Prison Population

6. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement on the Marae programme that “the problem right now is that corrections doesn’t have any flexibility … we’re in a real bind”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, in the context that statement was made.

Hon David Bennett: Why is the Government not making a decision regarding Waikeria Prison, when there are approximately only 300 Department of Corrections beds left in the system and this presents a risk to public safety?

Hon Grant Robertson: Whose fault might that be, David?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I probably need to paraphrase the words of my colleague right next to me: the reason we are in this bind is because of the mismanagement of the previous Government not only in corrections, in justice, but also the social policies.

Hon Members: Do your job!

SPEAKER: Order! I will do my job quite soon and it will involve substantial punishment for about five members.

Hon David Bennett: When the Minister said in the Marae interview, “Corrections cannot turn people away. The courts say, ‘Hey, you have to go to prison.’, then you have to go to prison.”, who does the Minister think should not be in prison?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The statement that I made was entirely correct, because corrections does not have any flexibility to turn people away. So, exactly as I said, if someone is sent to prison, then corrections is not able to turn them away. So we’re looking at a range of options to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over 15 years, in contrast to that previous Government’s policy to build more beds and bars in prisons.

Hon David Bennett: Who would the Minister want to turn away?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Anybody who is convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison has to be there. It is the corrections’ job to actually accommodate them. So those people need to be there because the courts have said so. I don’t want to turn anyone away that needs to be there, but we’re in a situation that has been created by the poor policies of the previous Government.

Hon David Bennett: What’s more important to the Minister: deciding who should be in the prison system or keeping the public safe from those who have been sentenced to prison?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Not only do I want the public to be safe, I want the public to feel safe.

Environment, Minister—Environmental Protection Authority, Annual Report, Chief Executive, and Chief Scientist

7. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the statements in the Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Authority, “we have our share of science deniers, who oppose fluoride, 1080, vaccinations, glyphosate, genetic modification, and much more” and “our Chief Scientist is prominent in emphasising the evidence, data, and science that underpins EPA decision making”; if so, why?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes, I agree with the first statement by the chair of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) board, Kerry Prendergast, when she indicated that New Zealand was not immune to scepticism about science. I also agree that the chief scientist for the EPA has a role in highlighting the science which informs the EPA’s decisions.

Hon Scott Simpson: Did the Minister have any discussions with the EPA chief executive specifically about the EPA chief scientist?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I advised the EPA chief executive that my office had received correspondence expressing some concerns about media comments by the chief scientist. I was told that the matter was in hand. There was no substantive discussion.

Hon Scott Simpson: Yesterday, in a report on Radio New Zealand, the Minister confirmed that she had met with the EPA chief executive. Does she expect the House now to accept that no meeting took place?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: That was raised in a normal status meeting.

Hon Scott Simpson: Has the Minister had any discussions with the chief executive in terms of the scientific independence of the organisation and its role in how it expresses its view?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It is important that the public has confidence in the EPA as an organisation which uses robust science in its decisions. It would not be appropriate for me, as Minister, to have any discussions with the chief executive about an employee of the authority. I did not do that.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does she agree with the statement made last August that the EPA are incompetent chemical cowboys by her then Green Party colleague Steffan Browning?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The problem has been that the EPA was not resourced by the last Government to do all of the investigations that it needs to do.

Hon Scott Simpson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure that the Minister even attempted to address that question.

SPEAKER: Well, she certainly—well, I don’t know if she attempted to, but she did.

Provincial Growth Fund—Announcements

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Regional Economic Development and asks: what recent announcements has he made pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s obvious to everybody in the House—and I know I’m breaching the Standing Orders by doing this—but the Minister for Regional Economic Development is not in the House.

SPEAKER: He’s gone to catch a plane, has he?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would seek leave of the House for this question to be delayed until such a time as Mr Jones is in the House.

SPEAKER: Right? No, it’s been denied. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, on behalf of Hon Shane Jones.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Could I hear the question again, please?

8. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: The most recent announcements were threefold. They were to do with the Bay of Islands airport and the building expansion, well into the future to take the—

Hon Paula Bennett: We want Shane.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know you want Shane, but you only get me. [Interruption] Don’t worry, I’ll grow on you. The second was the Paihia wharf extension and also the Russell wharf extension and the Ōpua wharf expansion as well. These are four critical infrastructural measures that did have the overwhelming support and gratitude of former National Party members John Carter, Mayor, and Murray McCully.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he announced in an interview with the National Business Review yesterday that Air New Zealand should work, quote, “more professionally and constructively with small airline firms”, did he think of the irony of his words?

SPEAKER: Order! There is no link to the original question in that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The original question was what announcements had he made, and I—

SPEAKER: Regional growth—Provincial Growth Fund.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yeah, and I’m asking—

SPEAKER: And the member made no link to that whatsoever. Is the member going to dispute me now and lose some supplementary or not?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Certainly not, Mr Speaker.

Justice System—Sentences for Supplying Synthetic Drugs

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Justice: Should maximum legislated sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime committed?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of Justice): On behalf of the Minister of Justice, yes.

Simeon Brown: Why should the illegal supply of synthetic psychoactive substances carry shorter maximum sentences than the supply of cannabis?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, the evidence is clear: locking up more people who are suffering from addictions does not fix drug addiction, and it does not fix mental health issues. This Government will increasingly treat drug and addiction issues as health issues, not justice issues. That’s why we are prioritising and investing $8 billion over four years in health and making mental health and addiction a priority.

Simeon Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: why should the illegal supply of synthetic psychoactive substances carry shorter maximum sentences? I don’t believe the Minister addressed that.

SPEAKER: No, no, the Minister certainly addressed it. I’m not actually sure, in the end, that the Minister is responsible for that. But the Minister, in her answer, addressed that question substantially.

Simeon Brown: How does he support the current sentences for those who sell synthetic drugs despite the targeting of poor and homeless by such dealers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice. As I said in my answer to the previous question, the evidence is very clear about how we are going to fundamentally address this problem and bring about the change that is needed. This is a Government that will increasingly treat these issues as health issues and not justice issues.

Simeon Brown: Does he agree that the current supply of synthetic drugs poses an intolerable risk to the vulnerable in our society, which should be reflected in the sentences?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of this question—do I agree that the availability of synthetic drugs to people poses a risk?—yes. Do I think that needs to be reflected in the sentences? I have addressed that in my previous answers. We actually want to get to the root of addiction issues and treat this as a health not a justice issue, increasingly.

Simeon Brown: Does he agree that it is common sense to target the suppliers and dealers holding them to account, as so eloquently stated in the House last night by Darroch Ball MP?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we want to do is make sure that we actually address these issues in a way that works. The previous Government’s so-called war on drugs clearly did not work. We want to invest in ways that will make a meaningful difference.

Budget 2018—Greater Christchurch Acceleration Facility

10. Hon NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Yes.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Does the Minister stand by her answer to written question No. 3542 when she said, “The timing and availability of the $300 million capital acceleration facility is subject to Budget 2018 decisions.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Does the Minister agree with Jacinda Ardern when she promised, in a statement on 27 August 2017, that this fund would be available and would be “providing certainty for investment and choice for where Christchurch wants to invest”; if so, why is the Minister now uncertain about whether this funding will even be available?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are no inconsistencies in those statements. Clearly, the previous Government did not prioritise the spending on Canterbury and certainly did not leave us $300 million spare in funding that we could just reprioritise in Canterbury. The Prime Minister was outlining a policy. It is obviously going to be the subject of a Budget bid.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Can the Minister provide certainty to the House and, more importantly, to the Christchurch City Council that this funding will be in the Budget, as Ms Ardern said—“Labour is putting $300 million on the table, ready to be accessed for projects”—so that this funding can be included in the council’s long-term plan currently being drafted?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is a Budget process. I would have thought the member asking the question, herself being a former Minister, would have her head around that detail.

SPEAKER: No, I think the Minister has answered it enough. She’s heading in the wrong direction.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Can the Minister clarify for the House that she is now saying that they are not, as Ms Ardern promised, “putting $300 million on the table, ready to be accessed”?

SPEAKER: And that one is ruled out because it’s not a matter of ministerial responsibility. There is no responsibility for a promise made by a party before the election. Previously, the member managed to just get them in.

Water Quality—World Water Day

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: What does he think New Zealanders have to celebrate on World Water Day?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): World Water Day is a time to celebrate the efforts of the many thousands of New Zealanders taking action to improve water quality and to restore our streams, lakes, and estuaries. I was glad to join the students and staff of Koraunui School today, and I congratulate Liz, Dave, and Di on their excellent efforts over the past five years to improve the state of Stokes Valley Stream. It reminded me that the most important river or stream to most of us is the one that we live the closest to and which we and our communities use.

Angie Warren-Clark: What does Auckland have to celebrate on World Water Day?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to public pressure, and showing great leadership, Auckland Council intends to bring forward $856 million of investment over the next 10 years to reduce storm weather overflows into the sewerage system. This is expected to reduce sewage flows to city beaches by between 80 and 90 percent, and I congratulate Auckland City. This coalition Government believes that in summer, New Zealanders should be able to put their heads under the water at their local swimming spot without getting crook, and this is an important step in that direction.

Angie Warren-Clark: What do the regions have to celebrate on World Water Day?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In many of the regions, the greater challenge is rivers in rural areas. We’re working with stakeholders like environmental NGOs, farm groups, and the Land and Water Forum on key issues, including nutrient load allocation, how landowners in a catchment can best share responsibility for reducing nutrient discharges within environmental limits, how to manage sediment, and what can be done to prevent further damage to our estuaries. The many voluntary actions in partnerships in cities and regions also make a difference, and now that New Zealanders have a coalition Government that supports their actions, we can make significance progress in improving water quality.

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media—Groups, Inquiries, and Māori Consultation of Ministerial Advisory Group

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions in the Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media portfolio?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Yes.

Melissa Lee: In the portfolio, how many advisory groups, working groups, committees, or advisory groups to investigate the establishment of more working groups has she set up?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Golly, that’s a good question from somebody who has achieved nothing in the last nine years she was in Parliament.

SPEAKER: Well, she’s just achieved another two supplementary questions. Address the question.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: A ministerial advisory group in broadcasting and a digital advisory group in communications and digital services.

Nuk Korako: Why are there no Māori on her public media advisory funding group?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: This Government is focused, unlike the previous Government, on how we can do better things for Māori right across the broadcasting sector. Myself and the Minister for Māori broadcasting are working closely together—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —on ensuring that we will deliver diversity, unlike the previous Government, which froze funding to the whole media sector, including Māori Television, for nine years, compromised its editorial independence, and forced out a lot of quality journalists from that organisation.

Nuk Korako: Which Māori or Māori organisations did the Minister consult with about her public media funding advisory group?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: The ministerial advisory group is currently undertaking consultation right across the sector. It has already met with at least two, possibly three, Māori media organisations.

SPEAKER: The member will now address the question that was asked.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: A range of organisations were consulted with around the preparation for that ministerial advisory group.

Nuk Korako: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was clear, I believe. I asked which Māori or Māori organisations the Minister consulted. The question, I believe, hasn’t been answered.

SPEAKER: Well, it certainly hasn’t been answered. I’m trying to decide whether it’s been addressed, and I’m going to ask the member, without penalty, to ask it again.

Nuk Korako: Which Māori or Māori organisations did the Minister consult with about her public media funding advisory group?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: First of all, it’s a ministerial advisory group and it’s a temporary, interim organisation. A range of organisations were consulted with. I don’t have the details of that. I’m happy to provide information to the member if he puts it in writing.

Nuk Korako: Point of order.

SPEAKER: As long as the member’s not having another go at the same one, because it has been addressed now.

Nuk Korako: Supplementary: did the Minister consult with her Māori caucus members on the make-up of the public media funding advisory group members prior to announcing the membership of that group?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes.

Jami-Lee Ross: When she made her statements on Tuesday defending the inquiries and investigations that were highlighted by the media, including those in her own portfolio, did she actually mean the Government had depth and breadth, or were they just lacking their own ideas? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: As long as the question’s not disorderly, can the member repeat it, because I think a number of us—[Interruption] Well, if it was disorderly, he better not, but if it was in order he might want to repeat it.

Jami-Lee Ross: When the Minister made her statements on Tuesday night, at about 11.30 p.m., defending the Government’s record on the number of inquiries and groups set up, including those in her portfolio, did she actually mean that the Government was showing depth and breadth or that they just didn’t have their own ideas?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: This Government has shown more depth and breadth in the short time that it has been in Government than that party showed for the whole nine years that it was in Government.

Jami-Lee Ross: How often should the House expect the Minister to be making statements in her portfolio on Twitter at 11.37 p.m. at night?

SPEAKER: Well, actually, she has no responsibility for what the House should expect.

Bills

Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill

First Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): I move, That the Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Ka ao, ka ao, ka pō, ka pō. Ka korihi te manu, ka tākiri te ata, ka pō, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihewa mauri ora.

E Te Whare, ka titiro ake au ki ngā kanohi ātaahua i tae mai mai i raro i Taranaki maunga ki roto i tēnei Whare. Kei te mihi atu ahau ki tēnā, ki tēnā o koutou te whānau o Parihaka. Nau mai haere mai ki konei, ki roto i tō tatou Whare; haere mai i runga i te karanga o tēnei o ngā kaupapa tino ātaahua. Kua roa koutou e tatari ana mō tēnei wā nā reira nau mai haere mai, haere mai.

Kei te huri ōku whakaaro ki ō tātou tini aituā, ngā aituā nā koutou i mau mai ki konei kia utaina mai ki runga i ngā mate nā mātou i mau mai, kia tangihia tātou i a rātou; rātou ki a rātou te hunga wairua, ko tātou ngā kanohi ora, tātou ki a tātou anō. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai.

[Day dawns, night falls. Birds sing to herald the break of day, night falls, dawn breaks, we have daylight. Behold, there is life.

As I address the House, I look up at the beautiful faces of those whom have come from Mount Taranaki, to this House. I greet each and every one of you from the Parihaka community. Welcome, welcome to this House; welcome in the name of the wonderful occasion that brings you here. You have waited a very long time for this day, therefore welcome, welcome, welcome.

Let me turn to our many dearly departed, those dearly departed whom you have brought with you, that we may mourn together our collective deceased; having paid our respects to the spiritual world, we may now turn back to the land of the living.

Warm greetings to you all. I salute you, welcome.]

I want to extend a warm welcome to the members of the Parihaka community who have come to Parliament for the first reading of this bill, Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. The Parihaka community is a broad one, and I acknowledge the many people here today from Taranaki and throughout the country who have connections to Parihaka and support its legacy of peace and self-determination.

Many generations of the Parihaka community have passed on while they have waited for the Crown to appropriately recognise the damage its actions caused. I acknowledge those people and the fact that it’s taken far too long to reach this point. I want to make a special acknowledgment of the late Rangikōtuku Rukuwai, the great-great-grandson of Te Whiti o Rongomai and a whanaunga of Tohu Kākahi. Rangikōtuku was a leader of Parihaka, an integral part of the Parihaka community and the reconciliation process, and made an immense contribution to ensuring the legacy of Tohu and Te Whiti continues today.

Welcome also to the trustees of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust. Nōku te hōnore i nanahi rā nā koutou i tau mai ki roto i tōku tari. Nā reira, e koutou mā, tēnā rā koutou.

[I was honoured to receive you in my office yesterday. Therefore, once again warm greetings to you all.]

Throughout this process, you have been the voice of your community and have worked tirelessly to ensure that they can participate in the reconciliation journey. Your leadership and hard work and integrity have made this bill possible. To the members of Kawe Tutaki—Dame Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, Amokura Panoho, and Ruakere Hond—I thank you for the guidance you have provided to the Crown.

In 2015, you recommended that the Crown take steps to develop a new relationship with Parihaka and enshrine its commitment to that new relationship in legislation. Today represents an important step in implementing your recommendations. Of course, today would not have achievable without the previous Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who has been a strong advocate for Parihaka, and the Hon Christopher Finlayson, whose commitment to justice made this bill and, indeed, this reconciliation process possible. I’d just like to say to the honourable member, I have immense respect for the work that you have done in the whole settlement process.

This bill is the result of a long journey. In 2014, Taranaki iwi, Parihaka, and the Crown agreed to establish a working group aptly named Kawe Tutaki, which means “a vehicle towards closure”. Kawe Tutaki advised Ministers on how the Crown could best support the Parihaka community outside the Treaty settlement process. After careful consultation with the Parihaka community, Ministers, Crown agencies, and local authorities, Kawe Tutaki recommended the Crown reconcile its troubled relationship with Parihaka and recognise the community’s important legacy, and assist Parihaka to again become a vibrant and sustainable community founded on principles established by its visionary leaders Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai.

A compact of trust was signed on 22 May 2016 as a first step to rebuild the relationship. In November that year, the Crown proposed a reconciliation package that included formal relationship agreements with Government agencies and local bodies, a financial contribution towards Parihaka’s future development, a Parihaka-Crown relationship forum, and a formal apology from the Crown. The Parihaka Papakāinga Trust then led an innovative consultation process with the community to decide whether the package was acceptable.

I acknowledge the decision was not an easy one, and that, in ultimately deciding to accept this package, the people of Parihaka have chosen to look towards the future. On 9 June 2017, a reconciliation ceremony took place at Parihaka where the Crown and Parihaka signed Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of reconciliation, which records the elements of the reconciliation package. The reconciliation ceremony was not only an important turning point in the relationship between the Crown and the people of Parihaka but a day of national significance.

I now turn the bill. The bill, drafted in both Te Reo Māori and English, records the elements of Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of reconciliation that the Crown and Parihaka have agreed should be recorded in legislation to improve the understanding of Parihaka’s history, recognise the mana of the community, promote its legacy, and enshrine the Crown’s commitment to a new relationship with Parihaka. The bill contains Parihaka’s legacy statement and the Crown’s formal apology that was delivered to the community on 9 June 2017.

In addition, the bill records the Acts of Parliament under which the Crown attempted to end Parihaka’s resistance to the loss of Taranaki lands. The Crown, acting upon this legislation, was responsible for the suffering of the Parihaka people, and, therefore, it is fitting that the authority of Parliament is used to acknowledge and apologise for these wrongs.

I would like to focus for a moment on the legacy statement, Te Tikanga Tuku Iho, which was recited at the reconciliation ceremony and is included in the bill. For those of us who have read the statement—and I recommend that every member of this House does—it is clear that this is a document that speaks at many levels.

At one level it is a work of history: an account of the origins of Parihaka—of the rapid growth of the community as a refuge from war and confiscation and of the development of a set of principles that defined the community and shaped their response to Crown actions that are among the most deeply unjust in this country’s history. It tells the story of the Crown’s historical greed for land and control, and its preference to crush resistance rather than to compromise. It speaks about the imprisonment without trial, and the rape of Parihaka’s residents and the destruction of their settlement.

It speaks about decline, forgetting, survival, and, ultimately, recovery. At another level, it is a description of the community’s aspirations for itself and a confirmation of its commitment to principles that are no less visionary and no less applicable today than they were 150 years ago. But perhaps most of all, Te Tikanga Tuku Iho is a living manifestation of those principles. Critically, it is a statement written about Parihaka by Parihaka. It is a powerful expression of the self-determination that has for so long underpinned the community, which for too long was viewed by the Crown as a direct threat to its authority. Similarly, the use of Te Reo and English symbolises Parihaka’s desire for Pākehā and Māori to coexist, each on their own terms. Finally, its use of language taken from traditional Parihaka oratory and song illustrates the deep respect with which this special community views its past and shows how it draws upon that past to meet the challenges of the present. The legacy it describes is very much a living legacy.

I move, That Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill be now read a first time. I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Those who know me well know that there were two events in my ministerial career that mean a huge amount to me. The first was, as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, negotiating a settlement with the great people of Ngāi Tūhoe, and the second one was, as Attorney-General, working with the people of Parihaka to resolve this outstanding matter. I did do that as Attorney-General, not as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, because what happened in Parihaka represented some of the most shameful acts in our country’s history.

We are proud of saying that we are a society governed by the rule of law—a society that, since 1854, has strongly respected property rights. But so often in the history of this country the rule of law was selectively applied, and property rights, particularly of iwi and Māori, were not respected. Nowhere did this happen in a more shameful way than in Parihaka. That is why on 9 June 2017, after a lot of work—and Minister Davis was very generous in his acknowledgments—representatives of the Crown met with the people of Parihaka and we concluded this agreement, an agreement which acknowledges what happened in the past and also looks forward to the future.

I was so very grateful that many members of this Parliament travelled with me to Parihaka that day. I was particularly grateful that the Hon Andrew Little was there as Leader of the Opposition, representing the Opposition, just as I was very grateful that Catherine Delahunty, representing the Greens, was there. It was very important to have representation across the Parliament, and we were so very pleased that pretty well every party in the last Parliament was represented at Parihaka. Jonathan Young, the member of Parliament for New Plymouth, was present, as, indeed, was Adrian Rurawhe, the local member of Parliament for Te Tai Hauāuru, and other members of Parliament were there as well.

I was particularly pleased that the Chief Justice was available that day. I had actually phoned her and said, “Would you like to come to Parihaka?” In an instant, she said yes, because the judiciary did their bit in times gone by to undermine the rule of law in relation to the people of Parihaka, and Sir James Prendergast’s name is something that, if it doesn’t live in infamy, then certainly what he did was not overly impressive.

Jim Bolger was present. It was one of those interesting events—Jim Bolger has always been so very supportive of me throughout my political career, but particularly in relation to some of the trickier negotiations that we’ve had in the nine years that I held the Treaty negotiations brief. Interestingly, Jim Bolger lived not far from Parihaka. He said to me that—it was one of those interesting things—as he grew up there in the late 1930s and 1940s, Parihaka was never mentioned. Joan Bolger, who actually lived just down the road from Parihaka, will say that from time to time the story of Parihaka came up but no one really wanted to talk about it. It was as though there was communal suppression of what went on there, because people knew that something very bad had happened. So I was proud of this Parliament, and I was proud that other public officials came to that very important ceremony.

I also want to acknowledge Mahara Okeroa and Jamie Tuuta, because I was—and they know this—in 2015, really hacked off with them. We had just about concluded the negotiations for the Taranaki settlement, and they put on the table the issue of Parihaka. I said, “Well I thought it was incorporated in the Taranaki settlement.” They said no, it wasn’t, and at the time, I didn’t understand that, and wanting to get the Taranaki settlement concluded, I was, as I say, a little bit annoyed—but it was the education of a public man.

I now understand why it was important to deal with the issue of Parihaka separately from the Taranaki iwi settlements that had been negotiated under the Labour Government of Helen Clark and under John Key’s administration. It was very important to isolate this issue, to focus on what happened, and to have a separate apology and a separate acknowledgment for what happened. As a result of the interventions of Mahara Okeroa, Jamie Tuuta, and the other Taranaki negotiators, we reached that very successful conclusion, which is why we signed this in 2017.

I’m not going to go through the apology of the Crown to Parihaka that is set out in the first schedule to the bill. The legacy statement—and I thoroughly endorse what Mr Davis said—is extremely important and should be read by all New Zealanders, and in particular it should be read by some of the people who phoned my office in the days after the legacy statement was signed at Parihaka. I refer only to one particularly sad individual who said, “There was no rape at Parihaka—give me chapter and verse.” Occasionally, you get those kinds of comments. Most people have extraordinary generosity of spirit, but sometimes you do get people who make that kind of disgusting remark.

The reason I signed it as Attorney-General is borne out when one sees the legislation that was passed in the 1880s that meant that the rule of law was not applied to every New Zealander, something that was fundamental to those who signed the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February 1840 and thereafter. I invite honourable members and those who may be listening to this debate to go to clause 3 of the bill and look at the legislation referred to there—for example, the Maori Prisoners’ Trials Act of 1879, which empowered the Governor to set or change the date or place of trials, if for any reason it was expedient to do so; the Maori Prisoners’ Detention Act of 1880; and the Maori Prisoners Act of 1880, which declared that those committed or awaiting trial or detained in custody were deemed to have been lawfully arrested and in lawful custody and could continue to be lawfully detained without trial, something that simply, in 1880 terms, failed to observe fundamental principles of justice, failed to apply the rule of law to a significant section of our community.

It was shameful it’s taken such a long time to get to this point, because, as I say, I do believe in this country there has been, as it were, communal suppression of memory when dealing with these issues, and so that is why such a large section of the New Zealand Parliament went to Parihaka and were with me supporting me when we signed this agreement.

That’s the history; that’s the rationale for it. I now very much look forward to the future. I hope—indeed, I pray—that Governments in years to come will honour this agreement, will engage with the people of Parihaka, because they’ve been let down on a number of occasions and they must never be let down again.

In relation to the future, I’ve given my views. I think that this is not only a place where we go to look at the history of what happened, but I think there’s a wonderful opportunity for a dispute resolution centre to be set up in Parihaka. I can think of no better place to go for an arbitration or a mediation than in Parihaka, where parties come together in a spirit of compromise to sort out their disputes, but these and other matters are issues for the people of Parihaka.

So I say to our guests in the gallery: it’s great to have you here. It’s been a long time coming, it’s very much overdue, but to have played a part in this reconciliation ceremony is something that I will remember for the rest of my days. So the Opposition strongly supports this legislation, and I commend the bill to the House.

[Applause]

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ko Taranaki te maunga. Ko Waitotoroa te awa. Ko Parihaka te papakāinga. Ko Tohu Kākahi rāua ko Te W’iti o Rongomai ngā manu e rua. He hōnore, he korōria ki te atua, he maungārongo ki te w’enua, he w’akaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Tī’ei mauri ora.

E w’akapiri ana au aku mihi atu ki te katoa o rātou mā. E mihi ake Te Hon Kelvin Davis me Te Hon Christopher Finlayson. Whakapiria au aku mihi ki ā rāua mi’i anō hoki. Oti noa e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā w’ānau te katoa o ngā tāngata, ngā iwi kua tae mai ki Te W’are Pāremata i tēnei rā ki te whakarongo ki te pānui tuata’i o tēnei pire i tēnei rā, nō reira nau mai, ’aere mai, w’akatau mai rā.

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Taranaki is my mountain. Waitotoroa is my river. Parihaka is my home. Honour and glory to God, peace on earth, goodwill to all men. Behold, there is life.

I wish to endorse the words of welcome that were extended by the Hon Kelvin Davis and the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I would like to add my greetings to theirs.

Therefore it is only right that I should extend my greetings to the families, to all the people, indeed to the iwi who have come to Parliament today, to listen to the first reading of this bill, therefore welcome, twice welcome, thrice welcome.]

It’s a real honour for me to join with the Hon Christopher Finlayson and the Hon Kelvin Davis to greet everyone that has arrived here today. This is a special day. It was a special day when Te Kawenata ō Rongo was signed at Parihaka marae, and it was a great day, a generous day, from the local people from Taranaki, from Parihaka. I say generous because, to get to this point, one would need a generous spirit to accept everything that’s in this bill.

I’d like to speak about Te Kawenata ō Rongo and also endorse the words from the Hon Kelvin Davis and Christopher Finlayson about the legacy statement, because within that legacy statement, as pointed out already, is a whole history of what happened, and I recommend also to members of the House to read carefully that statement.

But I wanted to talk about the tikanga, the principles, that are set out in Te Kawenata ō Rongo and just read out a couple of these statements. One of them is manawanui, manawaroa—the determination of empowerment to find solutions to barriers and resolve issues of constraint. One needs to have manawanui, manawaroa to accept and to challenge and to work through all of those issues over 150-plus years to get to today. That’s called resilience.

I want to also talk about maungārongo and ririkore: maungārongo, the essence of cooperation, common vision, and consensus; ririkore, the renouncing of rage, hatred, and violence. I think this Parliament has a lot to learn from these values and I want to talk in particular about the legacy statement in so far as what the future holds. There is a statement within “Phase 9—the aspirations of Parihaka”. It’s the last sentence and I’ll start with that, “Your voice cannot be smothered by the authorities, your voice cannot be silenced by the powerful, nor the turbulent events of this land. Should your voice be abolished, you will use tikanga to respond to the hatred, overcoming it with kindness.” That’s the very last sentence in that legacy statement.

In terms of the principles that I’ve referred to, which really have contributed to the construction of such an eloquent statement within the agreement and is now in the bill, I think that, as I said, every member should read that statement. It has value beyond this House and it has value for our country. I think that we have to accept that the generosity of the people of Parihaka to work through this process and to get to that point while still maintaining their tikanga to develop such a legacy statement is a gift to our country, and I acknowledge that.

I also wanted not to dwell too much on the horrible history of it. It’s something that we have to do though, and we have to do that in our own time, in our own way. The people of Parihaka have carried this burden for too long. But what is magnificent about this piece of legislation is that within the documentation around Te Kawenata ō Rongo are the 30 projects around the aspirations for the future of the Parihaka community. I think that within this legislation and within this process one of the most important parts is the future relationship between Parihaka and the Crown, because this is just a start. This can’t be the finish. It’s got to be leading on to the fulfilment of these 30 projects. So the challenge is that we will do that.

I feel rather emotional about getting to speak here today on this, and it’s hard not to think of those who’ve gone before us. I didn’t really want to get emotional about that, but I think it’s important that we do acknowledge those from the past, the many thousands who have travelled around this country and headed to Parihaka, which was not the end of a legacy but part of the burgeoning and future legacies as well. I acknowledge communities like Parewānui, Maungārongo under Koro Ruapehu, Rātana, and others that have also carried both the burden and the hope for the future of ngā poropititanga. Nō reira, e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo mi’i ki a rātou mā e hāpai ana aua poropititanga. I tēnei rā ko te kōrero nei e pā ana ki Tohu Kākahi rāua ko Te Whiti o Rongomai.

[Therefore, it is fitting that I pay tribute to those who continue to support those prophesies. Today is all about Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai.]

So, Madam Assistant Speaker, I thank you for the time to express what is in my heart really. I did actually write a speech, but that’s not what I actually delivered here. I thought it was important to write one though. But I acknowledge all of the people that have had any association with Parihaka, because I think they are the ones that have carried the burden for so long and those are the ones whose future relies on a better relationship with the Crown. Nō reira, huri noa i Te W’are nei, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, to all gathered here in this House, greetings.]

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be taking a call today and I just want to acknowledge the last speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, and those that have already spoken today. It is a very emotional day. It’s a very emotional day for me as someone who grew up in Taranaki, in the town of Ōpunake, and went to school with a number of people who were from Parihaka. Pungarehu’s very closely associated with Opunake High School, and for me it’s also feeling that shame of the past that the Hon Chris Finlayson talked about before, in that Jim Bolger and others live not very far and I also live not very far away. You know, we grew up not knowing what went on at Parihaka. We knew there was something that had happened there but it was something that was very seldom ever talked about and that is a very sad situation that our country got ourselves into.

It was very enlightening for me to be able—I’ve been at Parihaka a number of times and I was there on a date recently in 2017 with a group of about 50 people from the Rotary clubs from the southern North Island, and I was there with Whare

and some of the others. We sat down and we watched the movie, we shared some food, and we had some conversations, and all of those people were so enlightened. They said everyone in New Zealand should have the opportunity to watch that movie, to hear that story, and to be part of it. There are so many sad things in that story. You know, we’ve heard today—and we don’t want to touch on all the sad things, but there is the imprisoning, there’s the rape. People were in prison for their participation in the ploughing and fencing campaigns. I mean, you know, it’s just hard to imagine.

We were given this basket. I was also there on the day when the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little and many others came to Parihaka to sign the documentation, and this is a gift that we were given on that day, which lives with me here in Wellington. On the side here is the albatross feather, raukura—sorry if I don’t pronounce this right—and I just want to acknowledge what Adrian Rurawhe said before about the renouncing of rage, hatred, and violence. This is a symbol of solidarity and commitment to non-violence and mutual recognition of mana in resolving conflict as a foundation for sustained peace. I think it’s very important that we in this House, as Adrian said, look to follow those values in New Zealand—something that was set up a long time ago through the people of Parihaka, who can be very proud of what they’ve achieved at this point in time. It is a big ask for forgiveness, and there’s a lot of deep hurt and a lot of deep feelings going back in history, but we all give you a lot of credibility for taking this apology and taking it forward. It’s been very hard for all of you.

One thing I would like to say, just to lighten things up—I know that the Hon Chris Finlayson mentioned before being mad at some point in time when he realised that Parihaka was going to be singled out. I just think that probably, over time, the Hon Chris Finlayson realised that in Taranaki we are very parochial and sometimes in Taranaki we do things a little differently, and that’s fine too.

So just again, wanting to acknowledge everybody that’s come to Parliament today—it is an emotional day, but it’s a very happy day and it’s a day where we can continue to put the hurts of the past behind us and learn to work together as a country far better than we have in the past. Kia ora. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): E tū ake ana ahau kei raro i te korowai aroha o ōku tupuna—I stand here embraced in the loving korowai of my ancestors. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am honoured to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill.

He kaupapa tino pōuri, tino taumaha hoki. Kia kaha. Ngā manaakitanga i runga i a koe, he korōria ki te Atua Runga Rawa, he maungārongo ki runga ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa.

[This is a very sad, very serious occasion. Let us be strong. Blessings upon you, glory to God on High, peace on earth, goodwill to all men.]

From Luke 2:14. Those are the words that are inscribed on the headstone of Te Whiti o Rongomai and I welcome today all of those from the Parihaka whānau who are here in the gallery to witness this significant day.

I’d like to make acknowledgment of those who have spoken before me, and who are still to come to speak on this bill, and the emotional experience for all of us who have been a witness and who have learnt about what has happened in history at Parihaka. It is a day for all of us to take stock, to learn, and to move forward with hope in our hearts that healing can take place and we can all move forward together.

I would like to talk a little bit about the history because I feel it needs to be on the record and not just for myself to be able to express it. At a time when the greed for land was greater than the recognition of our tangata whenua there were violations of tapu, violations of whakapapa, and violations of whenua. Now, we cannot absolve ourselves of the past. We cannot undo the damage that has been dealt—damage that is very relevant yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is a cascade of grief when we look and see what was endured by Parihaka in the name of New Zealand. Like a ripple of water as a stone drops into its clear surface, the tidal waves of the disturbing devastation of the peoples of Parihaka saturate the establishment of this country with shame, with guilt, and with a legacy of devastation and terror.

And when we look at the story surrounding the invasion of Parihaka in 1881, as we know it was a story of rape and pillage. It wasn’t rape and pillage by accident, by an out-of-control mob—nothing like that. It was rape and pillage by design. It was following legislation which was written by the New Zealand Parliament that the destruction, the imprisonment, and all of the horrors inflicted on the peaceful protesters of Parihaka began.

There is a sentence that really struck me in that legislation of 1879. It’s an Act that empowered the Governor to set or change the date or place of trial for those committed for offences against the public order if “for any reason, it is expedient”—if for any reason it is expedient. “Expedient”—that was the word that was written. It is quite possible the meaning of “expedient” has changed over time, and it was more like “do what you think was best”. But even when you apply that generous reading of that word, when you look at the rest of the enabling legislation of 1879, it’s an instruction to “Smash ’em up and lock ’em up.”, which is why “expedient” meant “take the path of least resistance”. If they don’t do what they’re told, do what you like—it’s a cover word, a carte blanche word. Why do you burn these people’s homes and sacred places? Because it was the expedient thing to do, at the time. May this House never give in to expediency. May this House do what is right.

There is a figure attached to this settlement. Is there money enough? Who can say? There is no amount of money that can wash the stain of Parihaka. We can only use the past to help shape our future, to learn from the past, and to truly understand and regret what happened at Parihaka and make it right. Only then is reconciliation possible.

Now Parihaka, as we all know, was a prophetic movement, born from the ideas of peace and goodwill. Parihaka grew as a refuge for other Māori in Taranaki who were displaced, run off their land—refugees. It was a well-run organisation, a well-run community, a modern settlement of those times—stocked with crops and livestock, a butcher’s shop, and a bakery—but you were damned if you did and damned if you didn’t. If you fought for your land, in came the militia. If you peacefully tried to defend your land and make your point of view, the response was exactly the same.

Te Whiti and Tohu, the visionary leaders of Parihaka, tried a new way with the fencing and the ploughing—those protests to try to avoid the bloodshed and tragedy that, eventually, many suffered. And when the militia did come to Parihaka, they were greeted by women and children, singing and with flowers. But, characteristically, there was to be nothing visionary in the way the Native Minister John Bryce employed 1,500 soldiers: Te Whiti, Tohu, and the men of Parihaka locked up without recourse, and the women and children left defenceless in the waves of violence, rape, and destruction.

Now, if we’re genuine about this reconciliation—and I believe we all are here in this House today—then of course we must see it as much more than the sorrow and the sins of Parihaka and the crushing of a protest movement. Because the protests sprang from a much greater well of thought and experience, we need to understand and learn from the lives and the objectives of Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai. This journey of reconciliation must be one that restores balance, it must restore mana, and it also needs to be a turning point for those in New Zealand who have never understood, who have never known, about this part of our shameful history. So, while we have hope—and much hope for the people of Parihaka—let’s hope too that the rest of New Zealand can understand and learn from this experience.

The past has always been present for our people in Parihaka, and while many Pākehā are only just beginning to learn the truth, the mamae of Parihaka transcends generations and Government elections and the horrors that haunt our very history. The desecration of Parihaka is a stain on New Zealand, etched in the pages of history: Te Whiti, Tohu, and the gospel of pacifism; the prophecy of Parihaka; the vision of the albatross that swept down, the feather that fluttered to the ground; the raukura a Tohu; a prophecy of peace; the unique symbol of the white raukura—the white feather—and the pakō, pakō, pakō, the drumbeat of the poi, becoming the beating of the heart of the people of Parihaka. Now, a new drum is beating as this settlement is seen as a point of healing, as the people of Parihaka and the Crown begin to march closer together.

New Zealand First wants to join in taking a role in ushering in a new day of hope and prosperity for the people of Parihaka, the people of Taranaki. Today, with my colleagues and our leader, we want to celebrate a forward-looking vision to see beyond te pouri nui o Parihaka. Tēnā koutou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, he mihi atu ki a koe. Nō reira tēnā rā koutou ngā puāwaitaka o tō tātou matua tīpuna.

He mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua nui i te raki. Ko ia te tīmataka me te whakamutunga o tātou katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki te kaihōmai o kā mea pai katoa.

Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou, kā aituā kua wehe ki tō wairua. Nō reira e koutou rā, ka hokihoki ngā maumahara o tō rakatira, o 28th te ope tauā Māori e haere atu rā, e Alfred “Bunty” Preece, nō Ngāti Mutunga, Kai Tahu, Ngāti Māmoe, Waitaha, nō Moriori, nō reira e haere atu rā.

Nei rā mihi honuhonu ki ngā uri o Kurahaupō waka me ngā waka o Tokomaru, o Aotea. Tēnei te mihi ngā uri o te rongopai, o Tohu Kākahi me Te Whiti o Rongomai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Mauria mai o whakaaro ki te kaupapa nunui. Nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[Madam Assistant Speaker, I greet you. Greetings to the progeny of our ancestors.

It is important to pay our respects to our Heavenly Father who is the beginning and the end for us all. Therefore, I pay tribute to He who is all giving.

We remember those who have departed this world. In so remembering, let me mention and farewell our revered elder of the 28th Māori Battalion, Alfred “Bunty” Preece from Ngāti Mutunga, Kai Tahu, Ngāti Māmoe, Waitaha, and the Moriori.

These are my heartfelt greetings to the descendants of the waka Kurahaupō, Tokomaru, and Aotea. My greetings to the descendants of the gospel, of Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai. Greetings, greetings, I greet you all. Bring your thoughts to this great matter. So, greetings.]

As I stand here today, I can feel the gaze of my tupuna and fellow parliamentarian the honourable Hōri Kerei Taiaroa, who correctly predicted in this House that the West Coast Preservation Act 1882, quote, “will not preserve the peace on the West Coast, … it will create a turbulence in that territory.”, unquote. What turbulence? Because that’s precisely what the events at Parihaka on that fateful day, on 5 November 1881, created—a turbulence that has not settled since then. The people of Parihaka and all the tribes that came under the banner of the rongopai of Tohu and Te Whiti, people from Te Atiawa, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Maru, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, Ngāruahine, and, of course, Taranaki iwi—they have never ceased to fight for justice, but what’s remarkable in that fight, the way it was done, is it was done in a Māori way; it was done with reo.

And that brings to mind the words spoken in this House by the honourable Hēnare Tomoana, not two years prior to Taiaroa’s perceptive utterings. He stated: “… Te Whiti has always said he did not care to fight. The only arms [which] he uses is his tongue. … His tongue and his voice are the only weapons that he uses;”. For a man who never picked up a weapon, Te Whiti and his fellow leader, Tohu, fought a battle for 137 years that has been relentless, uncompromising, disciplined, and must now sit in any army group battle manual on how wars are won. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then the tongue is clearly the mother of all weapons. Te Whiti won this war with his reo. His words created a turbulence that would never cease until matters were put right.

We talk of the sins of the father repeated by the son. This House left a terrible legacy on the shoulders of our nation’s future generations, with the likes of the Maori Prisoners’ Trial Act 1879, the Confiscated Lands Inquiry and Maori Prisoners’ Trials Act 1879, the Maori Prisoners Act 1880, the Maori Prisoners’ Detention Act 1880, and the West Coast Peace Preservation Act 1882, and the most sinister of all the laws of this time, the Indemnity Act 1882, which excused people who, in executing their duties, committed terrible crimes against the people of Parihaka. I cannot help but draw the conclusion that this Indemnity Act was an act of treachery, not just against the people of Parihaka but all the people of New Zealand. Its effects were corrosive and undermine the pillars of this great democracy, pillars built on the rights we hold to be inalienable today, and they are the presumption of innocence, to not be falsely imprisoned, to be speedily tried if accused of a crime, to be tried by a jury of your peers, and to know the crimes that you are accused of. None of those rights were afforded the people of Parihaka, and, indeed, we excused those who actively sought to bring down those pillars of justice for the people of Parihaka. What a disgraceful stain upon this great country.

But this House has shown it is not doomed to repeat the lesson of history. The first reading today of the Parihaka Reconciliation Bill 2017 is a signal—it’s a signal—that this House has learnt the lessons of the past. It is an action of conciliation on the part of this House that will reverberate through time. As a House, we can finally hold our heads up and say, “We undid that which was created.”

It seems almost pedestrian to now list off the features of this bill in the light of the enormous history that actually underpins it: the recognition of what happened, the financial recompense, the cultural redress, and, most importantly, the apology. They are but parts in a story that always seems too unbelievable to be true, especially when we realise that the events at Parihaka in 1881 happened here in New Zealand and not in any sort of other far-off country.

With the presenting of this bill today, we can, finally, as a nation begin the process of placing all that happened at Parihaka into its historical context. We can, finally, move forward with the people of Parihaka, acknowledging our shared past but no longer held back by it. The eventual passing of this bill into legislation will settle a story. It’s not a Treaty claim but a story that belongs to all of New Zealand, and that story is not the story of horror that occurred on 5 November 1881, but of the power of an iwi and two people—Tohu and Te Whiti and the people of Parihaka who made a powerful decision to allow a peaceful resistance to be their weapon of choice.

Let me leave you with some of the most extraordinary and moving words that I’ve ever heard, words that if they could be weaponised would likely end wars, words that were spoken to the Parihaka ploughmen in June 1879 by Te Whiti. I quote, “Go put your hands to the plough. Look not back. If any come with guns and swords, be not afraid. If they smite you, smite not in return. If they rend you, be not discouraged. Another will take up the good work.” Those are the people of the ones that are actually sitting up there in the gallery today.

I want to acknowledge the leaders of Taranaki iwi here today, because it was the determination, back in 2015, to see special assistance provided to Parihaka that set those that Te Whiti spoke about in June 1879 on the journey to this House, and they are here today. Tū kawe tūtake [I stand to acknowledge] Dame Hon Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, Amokura Panoho, and Dr Ruakere Hond—e mihi atu, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. You have indeed led your people well to this place.

Nō reira, e āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou ki te hunga mate ki te hunga mate ki a rātou.

[Therefore, we now join together.]

Āpiti hono, tātai hono, tātou ki te hunga ora, ki te hunga ora ki a tātou—let the dead be the dead and the living be the living. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Ngā manu e rua, Tohu Kākahi, Te Whiti o Rongomai, tēnā kōrua. Ki a koutou ngā uri o Parihaka, o Taranaki iwi, nau mai, haramai, haramai.

[Esteemed leaders Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai, I salute you. To you the descendants of Parihaka, of the peoples of Taranaki, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

It’s really special today to stand in support of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. I will apologise to the people of Parihaka who are here while I do recount some of the important history that they have heard and know and live and breathe, but that still today too many in our country are not aware of and are not familiar with, and so I seek to put it on record in the House, as part of my contribution.

On 5 November 1881, 1,600 soldiers invaded the peaceful settlement of Parihaka in central Taranaki. This military might, this show of force, was met by tamariki carrying baskets of food, singing waiata. Several thousand other of the residents of Parihaka also remained peaceful on their papakāinga, on their land. This military might, this proud Crown military might, was welcomed to the community with open arms. But that welcome was not at all returned. Parihaka was looted and destroyed. Women and children were raped by the colonial soldiers and the colonial force. Men were shipped away, without trial, and detained. Many never returned, and some remain buried in unmarked mass graves.

These events of 5 November were just the climax of the Crown’s long campaign of stealing land, of many, many years of trying to steal and take from Taranaki what belonged to the iwi of Taranaki. It was met with many, many years of non-violent resistance from the Parihaka community, so that by the 1860s, however, the entirety of Taranaki whenua had been confiscated by the Crown.

Today, we stand in this very institution, in this House, the very Crown institution responsible for sanctioning this oppressive injustice and causing generations of harm. It is right that we stand in this House to start to try and make some of the things right. We used legislation from this very institution to sanction the terror that reigned. Thankfully, those bits of law have now been repealed.

I want to again acknowledge the people of Parihaka and Taranaki iwi who are here, who are privileging the presence of ours today and who have long deserved this day—for far too long have been waiting for it. Particularly, I’m pretty sure I spotted Whaea Maata Wharehoka earlier today—I’ll make sure I come and say hello—whose whare I have had the deep honour of resting and sleeping in, several nights. I want to acknowledge the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust and also the chair, Tina Mason, and the trustees for this incredible piece of work that we are standing to honour today.

Today, I’m proud to support Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. Today we also honour He Puanga Haeata, which was the day of the reconciliation ceremony that took place last year, on 9 June. At this reconciliation ceremony, He Puanga Haeata, the Crown gave their apology for the wrongs caused, and that in itself is a precedent for around the world actually, where we start to own up to what has been done, to the wrong that has been created. On that day, He Puanga Haeata, a legacy statement was also proclaimed. This legacy statement summarises the origins of the peaceful settlement of Parihaka, the values, the history, and the hopes of Parihaka, for Parihaka people and the land. This bill that we are standing to support today records both the Crown apology and that legacy statement.

I was very honoured and warmed that Green MPs, my colleagues, Catherine Delahunty, our previous Te Tiriti o Waitangi spokesperson, Jan Logie, our current Tiriti spokesperson, and Denise Roche, our previous chair of our Māori caucus, were able to attend. I regret that at that time I caused some very nervous looks from some radiologists and some surgeons here in Wellington, when it appeared that I was going to threaten to get off the table after having my appendix removed, because I just wanted to go. It was actually very upsetting that I couldn’t, but I’m glad it was a beautiful day. I’m just reminded right now how upset I was when I couldn’t drag myself from the hospital to go. But I know that my colleagues and all of our parliamentary representatives took my spirit and my aroha for that amazing day.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson and Te Ururoa Flavell for this incredible work, and I want to take a particular moment to acknowledge the former chair of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, Puna Wano-Bryant, for pushing, in particular, the acknowledgments of the mamae, of the rapes, that happened to the women and the children by the soldiers. I did want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for his readiness not just to accept it but to put it in legislation, to put it in history. That’s a really important step. Even now, he continues to acknowledge that and to make a point and that’s really important, for all of us to move on. And it also was particularly important because it validated our oral histories, because that was the record by which this mamae, this injustice, was recorded.

This bill is an important precedent for creative reconciliation, and it gives us an insight into what can happen when we truly do work together in the spirit of good faith, in the spirit of full acknowledgment, and in the spirit of wondering how we can do better going forward. It’s an important start, and the Crown now has the responsibility and the duty to uphold and demonstrate the good faith that was promised in the apology. Sorry is just the first essential step to making things right, and at all times we must remember the generosity of Parihaka and Taranaki iwi for accepting this reconciliation package.

The Parihaka story is one of the most inspiring stories of non-violent resistance and active mana motuhake for the whole world. It leaves with us some incredible values that, actually, the world and, absolutely, Aotearoa can take inspiration from. It provides us with a blueprint of how we need to reconcile not just Parihaka but our whole country—how we need to reconcile our history and our truth, how we live together, and our relationships with each other and to our land and to our mokopuna to come. This is the beauty of what the Parihaka people are generously, generously affording to all of us, and it’s now our responsibility to make sure we uphold the dignity of Parihaka in the stories that we have to share.

I’m very proud that the Greens also stand in support of a commemoration day—and that has to be led by Parihaka—as part of our nation coming to terms with what has happened. This is a celebration. This is acknowledgment. This is a huge symbolic day for our country, and I’m really honoured to stand here, to speak on it, and I’m feeling a little bit better now. Even though I didn’t get to the actual day, I’m feeling a little bit better that I got to stand up and speak. Kia ora tātou katoa.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and can I acknowledge the presence of the different iwi of Taranaki and of Parihaka here today. It’s wonderful to see you here today, in this historic moment. Can I acknowledge Marama Davidson’s words—I think very well spoken, and, certainly, Catherine Delahunty would be very proud of your words, as she was very committed to this process. Also, can I acknowledge the words of other speakers here today, and a special acknowledgment to the Hon Chris Finlayson—to a man who has passionately carried the burden of wanting to see reconciliation and healing happen in our country.

This place, Parliament—it’s wonderful that today we are here and that we experience unity across the House and unity in this cause of the recognition of what is needed to be done to bring healing, reconciliation, and a positive future to Parihaka. As the previous speaker said, it was this institution that put in place laws that divided this nation, and we are so pleased that they have been repealed and that laws in this House determine to bring people together.

As somebody born in Hāwera in South Taranaki, I grew up hearing the story of Parihaka, and I count it an enormous privilege to be able to stand here today in support of this piece of legislation. I believe that the Crown apology carries with it a spirit of humility and remorse and I thank the people of Parihaka that are represented here today for the spirit of generosity and forgiveness. I believe that those attributes that people bring, in terms of their relationships, are the foundation for something wonderful in the future.

When I think about the region of Taranaki, when I think about the people I know, care about, and love, and the wonderful people here today—when you consider what happened to them and the generosity and forgiveness that they express, you would have to acknowledge their nobility. You think about the people of Taranaki today who have history at Parihaka—generational history on both sides. Well, I was on the wrong side of history. So that’s why today I’m very happy and feel it an enormous privilege to stand in support of what is going to be a wonderful thing as we continue to honour our commitments to Parihaka through this legislation, but also acknowledge regional councils and district councils and the people of Taranaki, who not just through legislation here in this Parliament but through their local government and different organisations are committing to that future.

We hope to see a region of people who have a history of conflict but now who have a future of peace and prosperity, and of acknowledgment, and of togetherness and inclusion and respect, so that we can understand that every single one of us—we have a stake together to build the future that we want to pass down to our mokopuna, that we want to pass down to those people. We want to have a place that when people come and move in and live in Taranaki—that this is a place that is, indeed, a nurture bed.

When I think of the seeds of the legacy words, they’re in the ground watered by tears of hurt and the shedding of blood. A number of years ago, my wife Maura and I went down to Dunedin to see the place of incarceration, to see what had happened to the people of Parihaka, and we were deeply moved. We wanted to know our history. We wanted to know what had happened to the people and to the forebears of the people that we know and love in Taranaki. Because, as much as I heard about Parihaka as a child, from my mother, I never heard it from a history teacher at my high school that I went to.

I think it would be a great thing if we forgot about fireworks on 5 November and we commemorated one of the poignant, powerful, and painful events that has somehow put a mark in our hearts, that happened at Parihaka—because I think that the story that is coming, in the events that took place and the response of the people at Parihaka who laid down their weapons in the spirit of peace and love, under Tohu and Te Whiti, is a story that our world needs to hear, and continually needs to hear. We live in a world that is too often marked with conflict, too often marked with those areas of pain, and the story of Parihaka is so powerful that the legacy is not only for us but for every person who needs to hear the message of peace and what it stands for.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. People of Parihaka, thank you for being here. Thank you for the opportunity. I acknowledge you; I respect you; I love you. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Hon Willie Jackson, five minutes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): E ngā mōrehu o ngā manu e rua, ki a koutou ko ngā tātarakihi o Parihaka, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, ā, he hōnore nui ki te tū i mua i a koutou, ā, i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[To the survivors of the two leaders, to you the cicadas of Parihaka, I greet you, it is a great honour to stand before you who have ennobled us at this time, greetings, greetings again to you all.]

You people of Parihaka are probably responsible for giving us maybe the most unified House we’ve ever had. There’s a bit of a love affair going on down here. Fantastic—I’ve never seen anything like it. Well done to everyone today. I mean that sincerely. Some beautiful speeches coming through from all sides, and I compliment everyone who’s spoken before me. I can’t add a lot, because there’s been so much great kōrero, but I was thinking through—I heard Marama Davidson’s korero; fabulous. Some of the kōrero from the National Party earlier: Chris Finlayson—tremendous. So mihi to him—well done to him. Well done to your whanaunga Te Ururoa Flavell. Sorry about the election, but that’s how it goes. He did a terrific job. Well done to him. I know it was a big kaupapa for him.

I’ll pick up on a couple of points. The generosity of our people should never ever, ever be forgotten. It’s never been exhibited more than during the Treaty settlements process where our people have settled for minuscule amounts—it doesn’t matter who the Government is, but our people want to get on with it. Parihaka’s not about the pūtea—no doubt about that; it’s about the kaupapa.

I was thinking about—I was listening to all the kōrero, and, with greatest respect, when I think about Parihaka, I don’t just think about Tohu and Te Whiti, I don’t just think about the disgraceful actions of the Crown—I think about now. I think about 2018, and I think, “Jeez, I hope we’ve learnt the lessons of Parihaka.” I would hope that in 2018 the Crown, or the Government, would never ever, ever act how they acted in 1881—certainly, this Government won’t. So I keep my fingers crossed that we’ll never breach the human rights of our people—we’ll never breach tikanga, we’ll never breach the taha Māori side. And I know that won’t happen. But the reality is, if we look back in our lifetime, some of us can only look back a few years and remember some things that all Governments were probably not proud of.

I say today, off the back of particularly what Marama Davidson was saying, and others: we’ve got to learn the lessons of Parihaka. What are the lessons of Parihaka? Respect our Reo. Respect our tikanga. Respect our culture. This can’t just be about an apology today and beautiful speeches here in the House. This is about kaupapa Māori. This is about tikanga Māori. And so we’ve got to learn from history what Te Whiti and Tohu talked about: partnership, working together, mana motuhake, and manaakitanga.

Where does that fit in, in terms of our Government? Where does that fit in, in terms of the Crown? I think we need to think about that as we go forward. We need to think about that, because we can’t do all wonderful speeches and loving speeches here in the House, do the apology, and then move on and Māori are talking about mana motuhake and rangatiratanga and everything else, and we did our apology in the House and nothing’s changed. No, we can’t do that—whether you’re in the National Party or the Labour Party. We have to listen to the cries from our people about mana motuhake, about why the language is so important to preserve, about rights in different areas—and I’d better not go down that track too far. But they are valid rights; they are valid concerns.

Parihaka has laid the framework and laid the base for us all, for us to think about. The kōrero today has been tremendous and makes us all think that when we can come together sometimes, we can whakakotahi for our kaupapa—unite for our kaupapa. So I mihi to everyone—mihi to everyone. It’s been an honour just being in the House listening to this type of kōrero. Haven’t heard it for years, so I mihi to you, all our people from Parihaka. He hōnore nui ki te tū i mua i a koutou. Tēnā koutou, ā tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[It is a great honour to stand before you. Greetings, greetings again to you all.]

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Ngā uri me ngā hapū me ngā iwi o Taranaki, ko Taranaki tō koutou maunga, ko Waitōtara tō koutou awa, ko Parihaka tō koutou kāinga. Kei te tangi taku ngākau mō ngā moemoeā a Tohu Kākahi rāua ko Te Whiti o Rongomai, ngā manu e rua.

[The descendants and the hapū and the iwi of Taranaki, Taranaki is your mountain, Waitōtara is your river, Parihaka is your village. My heart laments the dreams of Tohu Kākahi and Te Whiti o Rongomai, the two leaders.]

It is with deep humility and privilege I stand and speak today to address ngā uri o Parihaka and this House with the first reading of Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka, and with a heaviness of heart for the enduring mamae and the enormity of injustice—the most grievous injustice inflicted—and a heart of hope, the legacy of hope, the tikanga that was established by Tohu and Te Whiti at Parihaka, characterised by five key elements, which gave rise to the notion of the Parihaka movement: equality, collectivity, identity, goodwill, compassion and non-violence, and self-sufficiency.

It is Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill, to record the elements of Te Kawenata ō Rongo, the deed of recognition and relationship agreement upon which the Crown and Parihaka agreed to reconcile their relationship. It is a significant milestone for the Crown, Parihaka, Taranaki whānui, and Aotearoa as a nation, and also our global brothers and sisters who believe in Parihaka’s legacy of hope and peace.

I now turn to reflect on He Puanga Haeata, the Parihaka-Crown reconciliation ceremony. On Friday, 9 June 2017, I stood alongside my Whanganui Ngāti Apa whanaunga, Tahurangi, Tariana Turia, my predecessor the Hon Chester Borrows, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the Hon Andrew Little—all whom I acknowledge for their contributions—and the many Crown officials. As we gathered at the gates, and in the calm, quiet, contemplative, and compelling moment, there was the quell of karanga, a wave of women and children moving poignantly, powerfully over open terrain and hill to welcome us into the folds and embrace of Parihaka—symbolic of your movement in peace and your peace movement, the legacy of Tohu and Te Whiti never to be vanquished.

I acknowledge you all: descendants, mokopuna, and children of Parihaka. I acknowledge the National-led Government under the guidance of the Hon Chris Finlayson, alongside the Māori Party in coalition, striving for reconciliation within this bill—a confirmation of the commitments by the Crown and the people of Parihaka. In the Crown’s apology, in the legacy statement Te Tikanga Tuku Iho, in near closing, I drill to Phase 9, which talks of the aspirations of Parihaka, focusing into the future, and I quote: “Listen, for you have a role to fulfil, it is a challenge left to you by your ancestors … Violence scars, while that shown care will be strong, self-assured and confident.”

I close with a few poignant lyrics from Tim Finn’s song, the song of “Parihaka”:

Look to the sky, the spirit of Te Whiti.

The endless tide is murmuring his name.

I know Te Whiti will never be defeated,

And even if the darkest hour,

His presence will remain.

I’ll sing for you a song of Parihaka.

One day you’ll know the truth,

They can’t pull out the roots,

Come and take me home,

To weep for my lost brother.

They gather still, the clouds of Taranaki,

His children’s children wearing the white plume,

I’ll sing for you a song of Parihaka

Come to Parihaka,

Weep for my lost brother,

The spirit of non-violence,

Has come to fill the silence

Come to Parihaka.

It is with humility and a hopeful heart that I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ōtirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātau katoa. E Te Māngai, he member ahau o te rohe pōtae o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. He uri ahau o Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa o Te Tai Rāwhiti, me Ngāti Kahungunu hoki, e tū ki te mihi pō’hiri ki ngā manuhiri, ngā iwi o Parihaka, Taranaki whānau whānui: nau mai haramai, nau mai haramai, nau mai haramai. Nau mai haramai i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira o te wā. Nō reira e ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, e koro mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Madam Assistant Speaker, greetings, and to the members of this House, greetings to us all. To the Madam Assistant Speaker, I am a member of the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate. I am a descendant of Gisborne and the East Coast, also Ngāti Kahungunu, and stand to welcome the visitors, the iwi of Parihaka, of the wider Taranaki family: welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome for the important topic with us now. Therefore my esteemed chiefs, female elders, and male elders, greetings, greetings, greetings to us all.]

It is indeed my privilege to rise in support of the passage of this reconciliation bill. Can I please acknowledge the Parihaka community who have come to Parliament today for the first reading of this bill. I’d like to also acknowledge the many people here today from Taranaki and throughout the country who have connections to Parihaka and support its legacy. I’d like to acknowledge those who have passed while they waited for the Crown to acknowledge its wrongs. I’d like to acknowledge the trustees of the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, Kawe Tūtaki, Dame Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the Hon Mahara Okeroa, Amokura Panoho, and Ruakere Hond. I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and the Hon Christopher Finlayson for their role in progressing this bill.

As a young 20-year-old, I ventured and visited Parihaka for the very first time. I was part of a group under the guidance of the late Hon Parekura Horomia. We visited Parihaka, and in that time that I met the late Milton Hohaia, who hosted us, I came to appreciate the story behind Parihaka. What I got to learn on that visit was that Parihaka was a thriving community. It was a thriving community of Māori working their lands for themselves. I learnt that they actually had their own bank and their own flour mill. They were trading to Australia. There was absolutely an idyllic community, if you were to point to one in this country where Māori indigenous people where practising tino rangatiratanga.

That’s what I learnt from those visits to Parihaka and then very quickly—as we are gathered here today and as all the former speakers have acknowledged—the acts and omissions of the Crown and the harm that it caused that community. Enough of the speakers have acknowledged that, but I want to put on record what I learnt of this thriving, innovative, warm, and caring community, and then through the actions and omissions of the Crown, what they turned that community into. So I want to acknowledge all those that have worked very hard to bring this bill to the House.

It often makes me draw a comparison with my time as a mandated negotiator for my father’s people, Rongowhakaata. In reading the history of this particular bill and what the people of Parihaka suffered, I draw some similarities with my own people of Rongowhakaata. One similarity is the imprisonment of our people without trial. We heard about the Parihaka people who were in prison in Dunedin. I also had the opportunity to visit those caves, and I can tell you they weren’t cells; they were tiny, tiny tunnels. They were tunnels that people from Parihaka and those that were sent to Dunedin were locked in at night. In the day, they actually built the wharf of Dunedin’s port, the stone walls—there’s a special name for that. If there was ever a claim against ownership for a big infrastructure like the Dunedin port, Parihaka absolutely has a claim to that. So we did—we shared that our people were in prison without trial.

Last week, I was lucky to accompany Ministers in going to the Chatham Islands where we opened the wharf in the Chatham Islands. I got to visit where Te Kooti lived and where our Hauhau and Pai Mārire prisoners that were taken from up the East Coast were sent to the Chathams for two years without trial. So I want to acknowledge the similarities between Rongowhakaata and Parihaka around the devastation—taking our people without due process and imprisoning them.

The second similarity that I’d like to talk about is the one around the carving out. I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson in his willingness to be innovative in taking off his Treaty hat and putting on his Attorney-General hat and carving off the unique qualities of Parihaka and looking at it through a legal lens. I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for doing that. Not many would do what he just did, and I want to acknowledge him for his generosity and innovation in doing that. Our similarity with Rongowhakaata and Parihaka is that we still have our ancestral house, Te Hau ki Tūranga, that is still sitting in Te Papa. So we haven’t settled that part of our Treaty settlement of Rongowhakaata, but I wanted to draw attention to where they addressed the Parihaka issue—and I congratulate in terms of the way the Minister has dealt with it—and to an outstanding issue of our own that’s still carved out and is yet to be sorted, and I hope that we get some closure soon.

The third one I want to acknowledge is the future aspirations. I want to commend the legacy statement and the wisdom and smarts that produced the legacy statement. But, specifically, the future aspirations, and it is a long list. I’m not going to go through all of them, but there were three that stuck out for me. The first one was around the legally securing of water supply, the healing and reconciliation processes, and, of course, land acquisition, which is a passion of mine: retaining what little Māori land we have in our hands. I just want to acknowledge the work that, obviously, the people of Parihaka have put into the projects that are going to put the Parihaka community in a prepared position going forward.

It’s amazing the projects they have come up with, but, specifically, around the legally securing water supply in terms of ensuring that they’ve got agreements with the neighbours around security of water. I think that’s going to be critical for the people of Parihaka, and I look forward, I’m sure, with working with the community around that. The Minister himself said it, and I must endorse him, that we could have an international, if not a national, hub for a healing and reconciliation service provider right in the heart of Parihaka. Who better to deliver that than the people who have suffered and yet still maintain being peaceful and loving people? Who better to deliver a service around healing and reconciliation but the people of Parihaka?

Then the last one is the land acquisition that I just wanted to touch on and acknowledge the challenges that Parihaka have as they want to get into papakāinga development, or growing the village—the requirement for land. It says Parihaka X is their neighbour. I’m sure that they have shared governors on Parihaka X and that they would look favourably on an opportunity to expand the community of Parihaka, especially through papakāinga.

I want to close by saying that I, again, am very honoured to rise and speak on behalf of this very important bill, this Parihaka Reconciliation Bill. It is a long time coming. But for the grace and patience of the people, it is timely that we put this bill through this House in a very expedient way. I look forward to it going before the Māori Affairs Committee, where people can have their say, but as soon as we can get it back to this House, the sooner we can progress it. We wish the very, very best to the people of Parihaka going forward. Nō reira, e te iwi kua tae mai i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Therefore, to those of you who have come here now, greetings, greetings, greeting to us all.]

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. E ngā iwi, me ngā hapū, me ngā uri o Taranaki, tēnā koutou. Ngā uri o Parihaka, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[The iwi, the hapū, and the descendants of Taranaki, greetings to you. The descendants of Parihaka, great greetings to all of you.]

I stand humbled today. I have waited quite some time for this bill to enter this House of New Zealand, because there has been so much kōrero that has gone on to do with the atrocities that happened in the 1800s at Parihaka. I don’t really know where to start with it, because it tears my heart apart when I hear and read about the atrocities that happened. Whilst I have not been immersed in the history of Parihaka, I took myself out to find out some of your history. It was through the eyes of a woman that was written about—and it was a fictional book, obviously; Witi Ihimaera wrote about her—Erenora. It’s called The Parihaka Woman, and in there she outlined all of the things that happened to her, her two sisters, and her husband, as an example of what the Crown did to the whānau of Parihaka, a Māori kāinga that boasted, back in the 1800s, over 2,000 whānau, living and thriving, doing their thing, looking after each other, and building their economic development—to today, where it only has 64 or thereabouts whānau living in Parihaka. The past of this country should be noted down as an atrocity to iwi Māori.

I have stood in this House on many occasions speaking on Māori bills, on Treaty bills, and each time it breaks me up when I see and hear about the history that our people—that my tūpuna, that your tūpuna, that everybody’s tūpuna Māori—suffered at the hands of a group of people that were so hungry for land that they would tread on all Māori and go and take their land away from them, just because they could. So I want to acknowledge the fight of the people of Parihaka, the whānau of Parihaka, the tūpuna of Parihaka. Their wairua sits in this room today overseeing the proceedings of this House in the first reading of this bill.

I want to acknowledge the other speakers in the House. It is a very emotional time for us all, but no more so than those of Parihaka. I want to acknowledge the members of the Kawe Tutaki: the Hon Dame Tariana Turia; the Rt Hon Jim Bolger; the Hon Mahara Okeroa; Amokura Panoho, representative from Taranaki iwi; and Ruakere Hond, the representative from Parihaka, for the amazing work that they have done to get us to this place today. Also, I want to acknowledge the Parihaka Papakāinga Trust, who have worked diligently with the whānau of Parihaka to get us here and who were key in the legacy statement; the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell; and the Hon Christopher Finlayson. The Hon Christopher Finlayson has done some very good work in all the Treaty settlement bills, but especially in this one.

As I said, the book that I read, The Parihaka Woman, about a woman called Erenora and her two sisters, outlined the passive resistance of their leader, Te Whiti o Rongomai: the ploughing of the lands, when the men were arrested and were killed, and that the women took over and set up the fight and carried on. The injustice of the way that those men were hunted down like dogs absolutely retched my guts, and it should never have happened. The way that it outlined the journey that these women took down to Dunedin to look for their husbands, to bring them home, and the various Māori members of Parliament that tried to help, and did help, on this journey—I lived in Dunedin for a little while, and I journeyed to those caves, and if you stand in them you can almost hear the crying echoing throughout the walls of those caves. So many lives were wasted in good men that should have been left to grow their economic development in Parihaka.

I want to say to the whānau of Parihaka that I do look forward to this bill coming to the select committee as soon as possible. I want to see it come back to this House so we can move on and you can move on, but not forgetting the history and the atrocities of the past, because it should bring us strength so that it may never happen again. In closing, I just want to recite a piece that Te Whiti o Rongomai told his people in 1880 to do with the birth of the passive resistance, and it goes like this: “Though some, in darkness of heart, seeing their land ravished, might wish to take [up] arms and kill the aggressors, I say it must not be. Let not the Pakehas think to succeed by reason of the guns … I want not war, but they do. The flashes of their guns have singed our eyelashes, and yet they say they do not want war … The Government come not hither to reason, but go to out-of-the-way places. They work secretly, but I speak in public so that [they] all may hear.” Those words, along with many of the other prophet’s words, will go down in the history of this country, and may it never be forgotten. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. A te maunga Taranaki ka tārehua, 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 whaiao, ki te ao mārama. Tēnā koutou aku rangatira. Tēnā koutou ngā mātāwaka i te pānui tuatahi, pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei Pire mō Parihaka. Nō reira, me pēnei taku kōrero. Hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai ki ngā mātua ki ngā tūpuna nō Parihaka. E Whiti, e Tohu, takoto. Rapua te mea ngaro. Hoki ake nei ahau i te rū o Waikato, he roimata toku kai i te ao i te pō. E ai ki tā Rāwiri, me whakapakari ki te hua o te rengarenga, me whakapakari ki te hua o te kawariki. Nō reira, āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Āpiti hono tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mount Taranaki, which is concealed, greetings to the sky, greetings to the land, greetings to the people. Stand trembling, stand quivering, to emerge to the world of light, to the world of life and light. Greetings my chiefs. Greetings to the many tribal groups at the first read, the first reading of this bill for Parihaka. Therefore, I should articulate this. Return in spirit, return in spirit, return in spirit the parents and the ancestors of Parihaka. Whiti, Tohu, rest. Seek the unseen. I will return from the Waikato basin, and cry prolifically day and night. As David says, strengthen the people with the fruit of the rengarenga, strengthen them with the fruits of the kawariki. Therefore, the lines are joined, the dead to the dead. The lines are joined, the living to the living, greetings, greetings, greeting to us all.]

I am very privileged and proud to be able to speak, to actually round off the speakers at the first reading of this very special bill. At this very moment, right now, there are great speeches and there has been great oratory and welcome in recognition of a world leader. No, ma’am, I’m not talking about the welcome for former President Obama; I’m talking about the world leaders, the whānau from Parihaka who are here in this House today, because the people of Parihaka and their descendants are world leaders. They’re world leaders in terms of the legacy that has been laid down by their tūpuna and the great prophets, as we say, of Te Whiti o Rongomai and—Te Whiti and Tohu. Sorry—apologies, ma’am.

I want to acknowledge the greatness of those two great leaders and also where we have come to today with the passage of the first reading of this bill. I am very proud, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, that we’ll be able to examine and hear submissions on this very special piece of legislation, and I do hope that we will be able to venture up to Parihaka whereby we can hear further kōrero on this bill.

It is important, because we’ve heard so much about the history, the hurt, the mamae, and also the great works that have been carried out by the leaders of the descendants and the whānau of Parihaka to get to this point, and, too, the great works that have been carried out by—can I acknowledge—the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and all those who’ve been involved in this bill and the deed of reconciliation. Because that’s what this bill is all about. The deed has been put in place and we are implementing those key aspects of that deed through the passage of this legislation.

We’ve heard a lot this afternoon about the history of Parihaka. One only needs to look into the books of legislation, the historical legislation, on the bookshelves of this Parliament and the Hansard and, no doubt, other records of Crown actions that have created such a huge injustice to the people of Parihaka. I also think of the great august member of this House Sir Māui Pōmare, whose picture adorns the special room of Matangireia, in this House, who, as a five-year-old, lost his toe to the advancing constabulary at Parihaka as he was offering bread to the advancing, menacing troops. So there has been a wonderful—well, there is a dark history, but also we are wanting to put things right and that’s what this legislation is doing. It’s a mechanism now which has the agreement and the support and has been led by the people of Parihaka so that we can recognise the hurt of the past but also acknowledge that through the Crown apology. And also reconcile so that we can move forward for the people of Parihaka into the future.

I, too—when one travels to Parihaka, one can imagine the thriving town that it was, the thriving community. That’s another aspect of how the people of Parihaka are world leaders in that it was one of the largest Māori settlements in the country at that time. They built roads, homes, infrastructure, and it literally would have been the envy of any Pākehā neighbours, I guess. It was a thriving community and it had people from all over the motu—all iwi. I guess that the pioneering kaupapa and messages of non-violent resistance—that is truly a great legacy and that’s the world leadership that I referred to in terms of what we can learn from Parihaka.

So I’m very proud to be able to sit—it is a very important mahi that we do as the Māori Affairs Committee, and I do acknowledge all of the members that will be part of that process, including the Hon Christopher Finlayson, a new addition to the team. We are most certainly looking forward to our task of giving thorough examination to the bill but also listening to submitters and to all those who wish to take part in that process.

Just to conclude, I did want to just emphasise how we are, through this legislation, formalising the work that has already gone on through Te Kawenata ō Rongo. So this is where the deed has been signed, and this is an important part of formalising that process, so I’m looking forward to doing that. I’m looking forward to, hopefully, engaging with many of the whānau of Parihaka and all those other interested partners, Māori and Pākehā, so that we can expeditiously complete our part in the process and then report the bill back so we can advance it through its further stages.

So without further ado, I do want to acknowledge all of the manuhiri that have travelled from afar to witness this great occasion. I can only stand here humbly and say I tautoko this bill and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Karakia

Waiata

Bills

Customs and Excise Bill

Third Reading

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): I move, That the Customs and Excise Bill be now read a third time.

In 2013, a review was undertaken to address concerns about the extensively amended Customs and Excise Act 1996. Indeed, some parts of the Act are over 20 years old, and other parts over 50 and 100 years old. The amendments have been required so that the Act could keep pace with the changes in trade, travel, security, and technology. However, these amendments created a complex piece of legislation that is difficult to use. The Act is out of step with modern business practices and if it was not replaced with the new bill would require frequent future amendments to respond efficiently to changes in technology and business practices.

After extensive consultation with stakeholders, including businesses and industry organisations that use and are regulated by the current legislation, the Customs and Excise Bill was developed and introduced to Parliament in late 2016. The bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which considered public submissions on the draft bill before reporting back to the House with recommendations in May 2017. I would like to thank the select committee for its consideration of the bill and for its valuable recommendations. I’d also like to recognise and thank all those stakeholders who have contributed to the bill. Many businesses and industry organisations made submissions on the bill and worked closely with the New Zealand Customs Service to help produce a bill that will facilitate international trade and make business easier.

This new, transparent, and easy-to-use legislation will enable the New Zealand Customs Service to more effectively manage the movement of people and goods into and out of New Zealand. It will provide the tools needed to protect New Zealand from people or goods that may cause harm, balance the protection of the nation with individuals’ rights, enable customs to quickly adopt future changes in technology and business practice, and support economic growth by making it easier for traders to do business. The bill also facilitates greater information-sharing between customs and other Government agencies for the disclosure of information on people and goods crossing the border for national security, law enforcement, and public health and safety purposes. I’d like to stress that this increased availability of information is balanced by specific protections and the standardisation of the process for information disclosure. The protections applying to the disclosure of information are strengthened by limiting the grounds for disclosure of sensitive passenger information, and requiring disclosure agreements to be made by Ministers, not chief executives, and to be published.

Customs’ use of biometric information and its storage—for as long as the purpose for which it was collected exists—are made very clear in the bill. This is a confirmation of the existing legislative position. The bill also allows biometric identity checks to be requested when a traveller’s identity is in question. I would like to thank the Privacy Commissioner, who had a significant contribution to make to the development of the bill and who gave advice to the select committee to ensure a bill that balances protection of New Zealand with the protection of personal privacy.

The major change, however, that this bill makes is to modernise the language and structure of the Customs and Excise Act to make it easier to understand and interpret for all who use it. Some of the main changes contained in the bill are that importers who bring goods into New Zealand where it is not possible to know the final value of goods at the date of import will have the flexibility to declare a provisional value for imported goods and then provide customs with the final value once it is known. The bill gives customs the ability to issue binding rulings on the valuation of imported goods. Valuing goods for the purpose of import can be complex, and this provision will provide importers with more certainty over how much duty they will owe in certain circumstances.

The bill also provides greater clarity about the excise system, which will assist business and protect Crown revenue. Businesses will have flexibility about where they store their business records, as the bill allows these records to be stored in the cloud and offshore, reflecting today’s modern business practices. A new customs process for appeals over duty assessments will be simpler and cheaper for those wanting a less formal way to resolve disputes over customs decisions about how much duty is owed.

There are not many who do not comply with the legislation, but for those who don’t comply, the bill updates and extends customs sanctions so they maintain relativity with sanctions across the Customs and Excise Act and with comparable sanctions in other Acts. Administrative penalties will apply to all export entries to ensure that customs has accurate information to give our trading partners assurance and to protect New Zealand’s trading reputation. An infringement notice scheme for minor offending will replace petty offences, increasing fairness and transparency. The details of this scheme will be set by regulation.

The bill confirms the majority of existing customs powers. The bill continues to recognise that a balance is needed between protecting privacy and ensuring that customs can contribute to protect our border. Customs officers will be able to undertake controlled deliveries across a wider range of goods to investigate smuggling. Public concerns about customs powers to examine and access electronic devices have been addressed through a two-stage search threshold based on officers having a reasonable suspicion or belief of offending. Travellers crossing the border will be obliged to make all goods in their possession available for examination, including providing access to their electronic devices when officers suspect or believe offending has occurred. These powers provide the scope and flexibility needed to detect and prevent smuggling and manage national security risk.

The bill balances the protection of New Zealand with individual rights. It provides modern and accessible legislation that makes individuals’ and businesses’ obligations clearer and improves assurances over the collection of revenue. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on this third reading of the Customs and Excise Bill. I sort of wear two hats in this space now that I chair the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, so customs fits under that, but in recent days, I’ve also taken over spokespersonship for customs. I’ll be honest, I’m bringing myself up more and more to speed in this space, but, fortunately, I’m relatively familiar with this bill.

Can I acknowledge the Minister Meka Whaitiri, who has taken her seat, as she shepherds this bill to conclusion, and I think it was a relatively quick but good summary in her speech of what this bill is about. But, if I might, I also want to acknowledge the previous Ministers, very briefly: Tim Macindoe, but particularly the Hon Nicky Wagner, who was primarily responsible for this bill and, I think, has put it into really good shape and into the final shape that it has, as I said, by Meka Whaitiri been brought to this House.

Look, I’ve raised it before, and I know there is a quiet calm in the House; there is always a slight disappointment for me that still—you know, 100-plus days in—we are dealing with bills from a previous Government. I commend the Labour Government and the coalition for, obviously, finishing our bills. That’s a jolly decent thing to do, but I am looking forward to some new legislation coming forward, too.

Simeon Brown: Keep looking forward for a long time.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’ll be looking forward for a long time, my honourable colleague Simeon Brown says, but, you know, I’m an optimist at heart.

We have always been, on this side of the House, very committed to supporting customs’ work, particularly in promoting trade and travel across, obviously, the likes of Australia and the Pacific but further abroad as well. So I think it’s of no surprise—as I say, Nicky Wagner and others have worked on the bill—that National is supporting this, and not only the bill itself but the concept. I know that the Minister will continue to be working in this space of how we continue to make customs and—well, trade, of course, is that of David Parker’s—trade to be even more efficient.

Look, the previous Act was dated 1966, so a lot of the nomenclature, a lot of the words, are now—well, the concepts are out of date. I think it’s important for clarity—and that goes for any business, and so it’s the same if you’re in customs, freight forwarding, and the like—that you clearly understand what the bill is outlining, and it’s certainly the intention of this bill to make that much, much clearer.

It’s also to try and reflect a much more modern environment, and I say that in two respects: first and foremost, a recognition that we are in a modern environment. Things now, and how they operate in the customs space, are very different to what they were 40 or 50 years ago. But, really importantly too, the mechanisms in this bill will allow customs to evolve and adapt more swiftly, and we’re seeing that in particular areas where we’re moving aspects out of the core legislation and into regulation, which will allow us to adapt, because—well, we know it ourselves as we travel around the world. The way we do things now is different.

One of the main things which has attracted people’s attention—this is around customs’ power to, basically, look inside your suitcases and, in particular, around your electronic goods, so we’re thinking of the likes of cellphones and laptops here. As I understand things, in many ways, customs already had those powers, but it was important in this bill to make that very clear and very definitive. As I say, a lot of the more public face of this to the layman, rather than the experts in the field—as in those working in customs directly—has been around, you know, how much customs can look at your laptop or on your cellphone. As I say, that’s a pretty standard ability, but this bill has put, effectively, a two-tiered function in there. The two tiers are really around the level of suspicion there is around what you may or may not have on those devices, and a proportionate response there.

As I was saying too, the bill has been seen—or, sorry, the previous Act, actually—to be completely correct. The previous and current Act is seen as highly complicated and complex. This is going to tidy it up there. Business is at the heart of what this is trying to achieve, making it more friendly for businesses. One of the elements is issuing around the valuation of goods. We’re trying to take out the ambiguity in the current processes about actually valuing goods. That’ll give some certainty to businesses of what they have to do, and if they can declare a provisional value, then we’re able to look at the customs and the excises required there. It’s going to be a process for customs to review these duty assessments. I probably won’t try to waste the House’s time by going into all the details, but the long and the short comes back to making it simpler and clearer so that the businesses will know what’s required and customs is able to enact that as well.

The Minister talked about the changes to sanctions. That’s going to, basically, introduce a new infringement scheme. It’s going to replace a whole lot of previous petty infringements. I think that’s a really positive step forward. There’s a whole element around the disclosure of information. Again, in this customs space, but even into the wider intelligence space, the information is important and getting quick and timely access to that. I think the introduction of the biometric side, when needed, is really important. I think that’s the really critical takeaway. You’re not going to necessarily have any biometric data taken all the time, but if it’s absolutely needed because someone is basically not presenting the information, then that’s a really, really positive thing there.

I think you can hear we’re supportive of this bill. Again, I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House. I am pleased to see it reaching its third reading relatively early in this year. But a lot of the support from this side comes from the fact that Ministers before have worked very hard on it, and, again, I’d like to acknowledge Nicky Wagner for her stewardship of this. And, as all Ministers will know, it’s that listening and engaging with the sector, hearing what they have had to say, and then, along with officials, articulating that into a clear bill. So it’s my hope that this will, obviously—well, I hope—have the unanimous support of the House. We’ll see what some of the other parties say. But it’ll be good to have this in force to bring that clarity to bear. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call the next speaker, I omitted earlier to say the question is that the motion be agreed to.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): It’s a privilege to speak on the Customs and Excise Bill and to see this bill proceed through its various stages through the House. And now to the bill, the third reading—it’s really good to see agreement across the House. There is a bit of a similarity between this bill and the previous one, to see that there are those bills that are just good for New Zealand. While the previous one might have been addressing issues in New Zealand’s history, this one is forward-looking, in order to equip our country to best respond to a changing world. It is that changing world that reminds us how important our border is. It’s important to us for our economy and in many, many ways, but it’s also important to our identity and who we are. That’s why this piece of legislation is so important to get right—to set us up for a future where we can take full advantage of the fact that New Zealand is an island nation.

I’d like to acknowledge those Ministers that have worked on this bill in the past, across both sides of this House. I know that Maurice Williamson put in much work before Nicky Wagner took over, and then Meka Whaitiri, as well, has taken this bill through its final stages. So it’s good to see that transition happen across the House.

Part of modernising this legislation is enabling New Zealand to adapt to a changing world. There are three areas that I would like to cover off during this third reading speech, the first being information technology; the second, looking at the role of interception and particularly touching on the increase of methamphetamine interception that New Zealand Customs Service has seen over the past few years; and, thirdly, in terms of information sharing and what this bill provides to enable New Zealand’s agencies to share information more readily.

So one of the more controversial parts to this bill has been the use of computers, or laptops and phones, where most people carry information, the so-called digital strip searches which have been discussed quite a lot during the select committee stage—and has resulted through that select committee process to see the introduction of a two-stage search threshold and basing that on there being reasonable grounds for suspicion, in order to demand passwords from those people. While it has been, I understand, initially, the view of customs to have more freer access, to be able to enable the ability to look through those items that might be causing concern, I do see that there has been an increase in the penalty of withholding a password, and that that is an outcome that has been well received in that space.

So in order to get that balance right between protecting New Zealand from risks and also ensuring that people’s own individual privacy is not infringed—it is always a delicate balance to achieve. But the fact that we have agreement across the House on the process of this bill is a good indication that this bill has that balance right.

The second point that I would like to touch on is the role that the Customs Service plays in intercepting illicit goods. We have seen a real increase in the amount of methamphetamine intercepted at New Zealand’s border. The interesting development over recent years is that while that used to be in the form of pseudoephedrine, that is now coming into New Zealand in a ready-made form, in a ready-form way, straight over our borders, and not so much being manufactured here in New Zealand. So that change puts even more emphasis on the importance of intercepting, and we know that the vast majority of seizures of methamphetamine is done through customs, and that trying to come into this country.

It’s important that this legislation enables customs officers to be well-supported by modern technology and processes that enable them to identify and to prioritise risks. In that space, it is so important that we have good intelligence processes to enable those people to do that job to the best of their abilities. New detection tools, an intelligence-led approach, partnerships, and the expertise of skilled officers have seen record seizures of methamphetamine over the past few years at the New Zealand border.

The collaboration with offshore customs agencies has prevented, I understand, in excess of $205 million of social and economic harm by preventing that methamphetamine from coming into New Zealand. That figure comes from the 2015-16 financial year.

So, in terms of weighing up the harm that could have reached New Zealand’s people, New Zealand’s population, it emphasises the importance of why we need to get our border working well, why we need to have modern technology processes, access to information, and good intelligence-sharing ways to make sure that we are protecting people from harmful substances, such as methamphetamine.

The third point I would like to touch on is around information sharing and the importance of accessing information that can be important to not only customs but also to other services such as the New Zealand Police. It’s encouraging to see an increased ability of agencies to share information, to make sure that those who have that information at the border are acting quickly and appropriately. So it’s important that, again, just as with the issue of looking at laptops and phones at the border, when information, particularly personal information, is being shared between agencies that we make sure that that balance is right and also protecting the individual freedoms of New Zealanders, as well as making sure our border remains safe.

It’s really heartening to see that this will continue to look at making business good for New Zealand, to give greater reassurance to those people doing trade and working with the level of assurance they know, in order to make sure that importing into New Zealand and exporting out of New Zealand works as effectively as possible. It’s really good to see that it is better for business and it will be not only easier for businesses to understand but it makes businesses’ obligations clearer and more flexible in meeting the needs.

The previous legislation, we know, was from 1996—over 20 years old. In some parts, that legislation was over 100 years old—quite clunky, and difficult for business operators to understand where they stood. Being able to give New Zealand businesses a strong understanding of where they stand will facilitate good business growth in New Zealand, and it’s great to see this legislation updates customs services to enable that certainty to take place.

It’s good to see that the Privacy Commissioner has been significantly involved in the development of this bill and allows us to assure the House that the bill will balance the protection of New Zealand’s borders against the rights of individuals. That’s such an important balance to strike, right from the top all the way to the bottom.

If we do see those areas, it is important we know that there’s an ability for people to query and question and raise those issues, and that’s what the legislative process has been about, enabling that select committee process for people to see these ways, through submitting.

Without further ado, I’m happy to see a bill that enables New Zealand as a country to make the most of who it is, make the most of what we can do at our borders, and to move with the times, to make sure that we are safe, that we protect people’s rights, but that we do the best we can with those who are always looking out to make sure our border is special and safe. I would like to commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s great to see that the House is in support of this bill, and I’d like to thank all the speakers that have spoken this evening, and also the Ministers that have been involved—the current Minister of Customs and previous Ministers as well—that have made this bill a reality by doing the hard work that we are now seeing coming to fruition today with the Labour Party.

Kieran McAnulty: What a nice guy.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, what a nice guy. But that last speaker, Virginia Andersen, did mention something which was very interesting. She spoke about how the borders are so important, and that is true. Our country is a country that relies on trade, and as a trading nation our borders are crucial, especially when we are a trading nation in mainly food products. Those food products require that we have a strong border and biosecurity system to enable us to be able to sell on the international markets in the way that we do. Everything that goes in the customs, border security, biosecurity area and enhances and makes that area stronger is something that’s actually in the best interests of New Zealand as a whole, and something that we should all be supporting, as we do see in this House tonight, so that is great to see.

However, when we look at our borders, there’s another issue at our borders, and that’s around immigration. It’s difficult to see any support from the Government for immigration in these current times. Anybody that’s an electorate MP will have significant cases coming to them where the Government departments are denying work permits, denying the ability of people to make New Zealand their home, and clamping down, effectively, on immigration. What we’re seeing from the Government is not a change in the settings around immigration, but a direction to the department to not approve cases. That’s directly impacting the work that you’re seeing as electorate MPs. Anybody, from across both sides of the House, will be seeing an increase in rejection rates at immigration, and the rejection of cases that are fair and should be allowed to stay in New Zealand or come into New Zealand. That distinct directive from the Government to Immigration New Zealand to stop the immigration is something that is very destructive to the future of this country going forward.

We see all the Labour MPs. They always turn up at events and say how supportive they are of migrant communities, when at the same time they’re deliberately stopping people coming into this country. If you look at the last immigration statistics—a 3,000 reduction in the last month alone. I know the Assistant Speaker will be looking at the bill and saying, “This is a customs bill.”, but we are talking about borders, and that last speaker said how proud she was of the borders in New Zealand and the work the Government is doing, and what can be more important in a border than people? The Labour Party have taken a great interest in denying people their future in this country, and they’ve done that in an underhand way.

Hon Phil Twyford: What a load of rubbish.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I hear that member over there, Mr Twyford, say “rubbish”; we know Mr Twyford’s preoccupation with people coming from the Asia-Pacific region and how he does not want people coming into this country from Asia. His propensity in that area has been very difficult to stop. There has been—and I challenge the Labour members to prove otherwise—a directive given to Immigration New Zealand—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’ll ask the member to come back to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: As we’re saying, Mr Assistant Speaker, we are dealing with our borders. The last speaker brought this up, and I’m just following on from her point and just elucidating on the treatment of people coming into this country at this time, because it is a disgrace for this country to be so restrictive to people that want to make their future in New Zealand. I’m just wanting to make that point so that people understood that when that last speaker made her point about our borders—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And I ask once again that you do come to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —it was not fair in the way that that was represented.

But when we look at the Customs and Excise Bill, it does bring together a lot of the things that most Ministers in this area have been working on for a while. It needed a bit of reflection and a modernising of the regulations to enable it to be more effective in the modern environment. Mr Assistant Speaker, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, but I’d just like to make it clear to New Zealanders that there is a directive from the Labour Party to stop people coming into this country. It’s shown in the facts, shown in the numbers, and don’t believe them when they go around trying to say that they support people coming to this country. It’s not true. It never has been true. The unions will not allow people to come into this country—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And, for the third time, that has nothing to do with this bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and so, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will have to look at the Order Paper, because I was under the impression we were talking about the Customs and Excise Bill but it must have veered into immigration at some stage. I will address this bill, because it is a very important bill, and I will commend the Minister, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, for shepherding this bill into the House. I will also acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner and the Hon Tim Macindoe for their work. I think there’s the predictable sledges about us passing the previous Government’s legislation, for which we will then push back and say, “Well, they’ve had nine long years to get it up.” So we’ll just get that out of the road.

But I would like to thank the officials. Look at the state of that bill—it’s a weighty beast that takes a lot of getting through.

Hon David Bennett: Have you read it?

MARK PATTERSON: I have read it, and I’ve got much to say about it, unlike yourself, Mr Bennett. I’d also like to thank the submitters, particularly in the business community. We are talking about trade—$105 billion, actually, of two-way trade. This is a major part of our well-being as an economy, so we need legislation that is fit for purpose.

This bill replaces the 1996 Act, which replaced the 1966 Act, which replaced the 1913 Act. It is a bit of a dry bill. As I was wading my way through it, one of the—actually, the nugget of information we got out of this was brought to us by Rino Tirikatene when he said, in the second reading, I believe, that the first customs operation was actually in 1839 in Waitangi. That shows you what an important part of our history this has been.

Of course, we now have, compared to 1996, an explosion in tourism numbers—3.7 million tourists, up from a million-odd, probably, back in 1996. That’s 10,000 a day if you boil it down. Probably, at the peak of the season, there will be two or three times that. We’re looking at going to 4.9 million tourists by 2023, so it’s important that we are able to manage these tourists. Of course, there’s about a couple of million New Zealand tourists that travel overseas—many of them reluctantly, I think, now they’re unable to get to Kāpiti or Kaitāia, Westport or Whakatāne. But the bill, and customs itself, to me, is one of the three key pillars that underpin our economy, along with biosecurity and food safety.

The other side of this, of course, is keeping our society safe—insidious things like pornography. New Zealand First was pleased to support the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill last night by Simeon Brown, but that was in terms of being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Customs needs to be the fence at the top that stops these substances getting in here and wreaking havoc in our community and peddling misery.

This bill does not change the functions, primarily, of customs, but it makes them more seamless and up to date and fit for purpose. Actually, one of the interesting facts in the bill is that customs actually collects $13.3 billion of revenue in GST, in the excise taxes and that, so it is a very, very important revenue gatherer for our economy. I think, too, the powers and obligations—I think it’s been touched on a little bit before. It, in some places, extends some powers; in other places, it restricts some. It gives some clarity, and I think it’s really important as legislators, if we’re going to give Government agents new powers, we have to put a very firm lens over that—and heaven forbid we get called socialists for doing so, by Mr Bennett—and the power of big Government.

Clause 207(5) and the electronic devices—the two threshold test—there are those two thresholds. There’s the reasonable suspicion—and that’s for lower-level stuff, where maybe someone’s come in on a visitor visa that we may suspect is coming in to do work under the table. Perhaps it was about immigration after all, Mr Bennett. But that will give us the ability to look at those devices—only localised; we can’t go into the cloud or on to Facebook or social media. And, of course, then there’s that stronger provision for those that we suspect of more serious offences. As the previous Labour speaker, Ginny Andersen, pointed out, these new provisions have had the Privacy Commissioner’s consent. That was New Zealand First’s—that gave us some comfort that we could sign up to these with some surety. It also has clarified travellers’ obligations: they must provide passwords and access to those devices. It is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the 1993 Privacy Act.

Just another couple of clauses—182; it’s the biometric information, and it clarifies what that can be used for. It can only be used for identification purposes of the individual and to check against Parole Board or court rulings; it cannot go any further than that.

Also, another important clause is clause 245, which is the controlled deliveries. The 1978 Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act allows for drugs to be allowed to go through the border once they’ve been identified, to go down the chain and collect the other perpetrators of crime, and go down the supply chain a little bit. So this widens that out so that other illegal importations can be followed, both domestically and internationally. This is a highly effective weapon for us in controlling illegal behaviour.

Clauses 49 to 52: passenger name recognition stats, which allows us to get advance warning of passengers coming forward and risk-assessing them. This is consistent with international aviation obligations and will be very helpful.

There is another one I’d like to talk about: the Supplementary Order Paper about the contiguous zone, which is 24 nautical miles. I wanted to raise that because I’d never heard of the contiguous zone, so I wanted to show that I actually knew what it was. So it’s 24 nautical miles—the territorial zone’s only 12 nautical miles. So it allows us to go out there and extend customs powers to get out and cut off illegal activity or suspected legal activity before it reaches our shores. It takes away some ambiguity around those provisions, it gives us some clarity, and it also allows us to—in the event that we have asylum seekers, for example, customs are able to go out with the defence force and support our defence forces.

Also the infringement clauses, which are clauses 376 to 379, because it gives customs officials the power to—up to $1,000 infringement clauses. So that is a pretty effective and efficient and up-to-date method of being able to enforce at a low level and have a deterrent. And the forfeiture and seizure provisions, also, are updated within that.

So within all this, this is a much needed bill. It does tidy up a very significant part of our economy. It has been a large effort to get this over the line, but I think that it is a much improved piece of legislation, so New Zealand First supports this long overdue update to our customs regulations. Thank you.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m enormously pleased to be speaking on this bill at its third reading. As the former Minister that started this work, it’s great to see the end of it, and it’s great to see it so successfully completed. I think everyone has done a great job, and I’d like to congratulate everybody, but particularly the customs officials. I think they worked on over a dozen Cabinet papers to deal with all these issues. They worked tirelessly, and I wish to thank each and every one of them. I’d also like to compliment them on the work that they did with stakeholders. They spent hours with local businesses, organisations, and interested persons, and they spent that time so they could co-design and come up with good solutions, solutions that worked, solutions that improved productivity.

I also want to thank the current Minister, Meka Whaitiri, and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for working so collegially through this legislation. They were absolutely committed to make sure that this legislation would be the best that it could be, because this type of legislation is important. It’s enormously important. It makes a difference to the security and the prosperity of our country every single day. Good legislation can make our border run more efficiently and more effectively, and that adds real value—real value to New Zealand and real value to New Zealanders. What we want to do at the border is to make it as user-friendly and as cost effective as possible for all legal passages and goods, but as difficult and as hard to access and as punitive as possible to all illegal activities, criminals, and illicit goods. It’s sometimes difficult to tell the difference, but customs works enormously hard to achieve that.

As has already been mentioned today, customs has been around for a long time, 178 years, and this bill that we’re debating tonight updates a series of Acts that have been amended numerous times. But, interestingly enough, there were still parts of this original Act that were 50 or 100 years old, which are now going to be modernised. It’s interesting, and, again, it’s been noted here, that the new bill doesn’t change the principles or the values or even the duties, powers, or obligations of the New Zealand Customs Service substantially, but what it does do is simplify, update, modernise, and really provide the flexibility to manage future challenges and changes in technology and in business practices, and to give new tools to combat illegal activity.

The bill is about balance: it needs to protect New Zealand and law-abiding citizens by good border practices, but also it must preserve the privacy of legal travellers and businesses and the ease of managing the border processes. It also aims to simplify the collection of excise, and it’s been noted that’s a very large amount of money. It wants to make that collection as cost-effective as possible, and, perhaps, as painless as possible for the people it gets it from. It’s a very big, complex bill, but most of it is pretty non-controversial. The work that New Zealand Customs Service did with their stakeholders makes sure that the changes are practical, they are logical, and they are streamlined.

Customs is very aware that they contribute to the economic growth and the productivity of New Zealand by making it easier for travellers and traders to do business, whether they’re exporters or importers. There are numerous business-friendly changes within the bill, simple things like businesses no longer being required to store records of interest in New Zealand itself. They’ll be able to store them in the cloud, internationally. There are new, streamlined, cheaper, and less formal processes for customs to review duty assessments, and that’s particularly suited for low-value disputes but also for small businesses. There’s new ways about ruling about the valuation of imports and also declaring of provisional value. There are also significant changes to sanctions. The bill will introduce a new infringement scheme similar to one that’s already used by the Ministry for Primary Industries for minor offending. The new scheme, I think, will be more efficient, it will be fairer, and it will be transparent for customs and for offenders alike.

So, in summary, this is a significant piece of work. It’s been well done by New Zealand Customs Service, and it will be beneficial to New Zealand and New Zealanders, and to our economic growth and the future of the country. So, well done, everybody. I’m glad we’ve finally got to the third reading.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging the previous speaker, the Hon Nicky Wagner, for her work on getting this enormous piece of work—as she’s noted—under way, and, of course, the current Minister of Customs as well, for completing it. I would also like to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as others have done. This is really an example of a piece of work where people working collegially together and the submission process have really worked.

This is a bill that will, essentially, futureproof our customs law and practice, making those processes more able to respond to new technologies, to new trade practices, and making them more transparent and fairer as well, which the Green Party supports. Some of the problems that we did have initially with this bill before the select committee process began were centred around privacy. I think most New Zealanders would be quite surprised to know that we don’t in fact have a right to privacy in our law, so it is really important that our privacy rights are safeguarded properly within legislation that affects them. The Customs and Excise Act is one of those pieces of legislation.

Now, in terms of the way that the Customs Service is able to work alongside our criminal justice system, it has always been concerning where frameworks around securing our privacy rights and search and seizure rights have not been in line with that of the police force in our criminal justice context. I am glad to see that some of those concerns have now been allayed, so to speak.

So there are things like, you know, the way that customs can look at electronic technology that’s in somebody’s possession. This is something that the courts have been really interested in, as have courts around the world, including the United States Supreme Court, where rights of privacy are actually very important. How much can customs, who have an enormous amount of power when they stop you at the airport, do to look not only in your possessions but actually go through your phone and look at your pictures. I think most of us would agree that those pieces of technology should attract, and do attract, the highest level of privacy rights, because most of us carry the most intimate of information on those pieces of technology. This bill now, sort of, secures some of our rights by requiring judicial oversight of customs powers to seize and to get that information.

The other area of privacy that we were concerned about, that we feel has now been addressed, was the collection and sharing of mass information, which is going to become more and more of a concern in New Zealand—it is already a concern. We all know that Government agencies now hold an enormous amount of data and may begin to share it between themselves in a way that affects people’s rights, so we do need frameworks around that so that information that’s been collected for one purpose in one context isn’t then inappropriately shared and used in another context to disadvantage or prejudice those affected. We feel, again, that that has, thankfully, been addressed through the select committee process and through changes to drafting in this bill.

Some of the issues that didn’t relate to privacy that have now been addressed, that we raised as the Green Party initially, were around the way that the value of imports and exports is recorded, essentially. Some work has been done through consultation with the IRD on the redrafting of this bill so that foreign corporates, for example, can’t bypass our tax system and are paying fair tax, which is an important role of customs, as we know.

The other issue that we felt was concerning was in the way that this bill initially prejudiced manufacturers over importers in the way that it treated them in excise duty. That has now been addressed as well, and, as we know, it is important to support New Zealand manufacturers to compete fairly in the market, so we are very happy to see that that’s also been addressed.

It is a pleasure to support this bill. It has been, by all indications, a huge amount of work for everyone involved, who have done incredibly well and have futureproofed our customs laws. I commend the bill to this House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is fantastic to see that despite the Greens’ concerns around privacy, which we typically hear a lot about, they have been able to see their way through to supporting this bill. It’s great to see that, because in reality those fears were unfounded and this bill was well justified in terms of the availability of data that it can collect for securing our borders. So, look, that’s a typical approach we’d see, and we also heard about the concern around Government agencies with excessive private data. Again, that’s scaremongering, which we are very much used to hearing of from that party, with their conspiracy theories and the likes. But in reality, this piece of legislation is much more mundane than that might suggest.

The previous speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, also alluded to ensuring that foreign companies pay their fair share of tax. Actually, the previous Government was working through a piece of legislation in that place, with regard to the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill, that was put forward at that time, to ensure those international corporates do pick up and pay their fair share as well.

It is a pleasure to be here in the third reading of the Customs and Excise Bill, which replaces the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The National Party has always supported—and did so ardently through the last Government—the work of the Customs Service to promote and protect trade and travel in the New Zealand context. Trade, in particular, is of significant importance to New Zealanders. We are a major trading nation. I’d just like to commend the now Government for being able to revise their previous stance and support the fine piece of legislation put forward by the previous Government, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Of course, a couple of extra letters on the front of it may well indeed improve it in some minds, but, in reality, for most New Zealanders, we know that that piece of legislation is securing good trade opportunities and ensuring that the work that customs does as well is aligned with that.

Some of the changes being reflected through this piece of legislation identify the fact that, actually, technology is evolving. We are continually moving with the times, shifting. There are new modes of communicating, new ways of transferring data and information, and it’s important that we maintain our ability to respond to that from a legislative perspective, and that’s in both a business sense and a criminal sense. We need to make sure that we do have access to searching electronic devices, as appropriate. This bill helps to update some of those aspects of the Customs and Excise Act to enable appropriate action to be taken by customs.

One of the other areas that I did want to touch on is that the bill brings in a new infringement scheme as well, and that’s really about improving efficiency and transparency. So it’s extending some of the penalties to exporters as well, rather than just importers, to make sure that they are upholding—given our reliance on trade—the consistency of information being sent out, to give our trading partners confidence in the information they are receiving from New Zealand.

So, look, we’ve covered a lot of the aspects here. In reality, this is a great piece of legislation. It makes some appropriate changes. Some of the concerns that were raised are unfounded and have been addressed well by the process this bill has followed through. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. As we’ve heard from speakers who have taken calls on this bill earlier today, it is a significant piece of work. However, I want to start by addressing a few comments made by members opposite—first, by the member Simon O’Connor, who rather hesitantly expressed a little bit of surprise that on this side of the House we were supportive of this bill and also had a little bit of a jibe and implied that we had no other legislation, which was why we were supporting this one. If I were to go into all the pieces of legislation that we’ve actually initiated and passed on this side of the House, Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m sure you’d shut me down and direct me back to the bill, so I won’t even attempt that.

However, what I will say is that this is a good bill. We’ve heard a lot about how this is a good bill and why it’s significant to a nation like New Zealand where we are reliant, largely, on trade and the revenue that it brings as well. On this side, we are not so churlish that we’d throw out a bill that is actually good for New Zealanders just because it was initiated by the previous Government. We actually give credit where credit is due. I’ll even go so far as to thank the previous Minister of Customs, the Hon Nicky Wagner, for the work that she did to bring this bill to the stage that it has been. It’s gone through due process. It’s been finessed at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and here we are at the third reading to sum it up and get on with it so that it actually benefits us as a nation.

The other comments that I will very quickly address, of course, is the scaremongering by the member David Bennett, who claimed that the Labour Party is deliberately stopping migrants from coming to New Zealand, when all we are doing really is stopping exploitation.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member has made an—[Interruption] Sit down. It’s a point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): E noho.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Oh, I have to sit—sorry.

Hon David Bennett: So that member has made an accusation, and I wish her to support it with proof that the Labour Party has not directed immigration to actually restrict the renewal of the work visas. So would you be able to provide that proof for your statement in the House today?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! That’s a debating point, and in reflection of the three warnings that I did give the member when he was speaking, it was always likely to cause a response. So I’ll ask the member to resume her speech and come back to the bill. Kia ora.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s an atrocious attempt to waste time by that member.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Absolutely, when all we were doing was stopping the exploitation that the previous Government did.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Get to the bill.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: But back to the bill—back to the bill. So what does this bill do? Basically, it’s a large, significant piece of legislation that will bring the customs revenue system into line with changing trade patterns. That’s part of what it does.

It’s also about greater scope and flexibility to address things like smuggling, to address national security concerns. It increases transparency around customs obligations when it comes to information sharing. It actually promotes information sharing between customs and a number of other Government agencies as well. It streamlines sections—now, this is actually a really old Act—or, rather, this bill will replace the Customs and Excise Act, which is over 20 years old, parts of the Act are over 50 years old and over a hundred years old. So it streamlines sections of that Act that have been repeatedly amended and that are archaic. It modernises the structure of the legislation as well and makes it user-friendly. It balances national security with individual rights, and that was a part of the bill that was finessed during the select committee process. So, at this point, I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the members and the submitters for going through that process and making it a better bill.

So it is user-friendly, and I mentioned that. It allows businesses and customs to adapt to changing technology. It brings things back into the 21st century, as it were. It improves assurances over revenue collection, makes it easier for traders to do business, and, actually, this bill is in response to requests by traders who have asked for things to be made a little bit easier for them to get on with their business as well.

In terms of the transparency—and, actually, I might just focus, in the last 40 seconds, about the national security, because the information sharing that it does—it’s about disclosure of information on people and goods that are crossing our borders, for national security reasons, for law enforcement, for public health, and for safety reasons as well. It supports economic development, it promotes the implementation of Government policy as well, and, actually, it does a whole lot of other things that, unfortunately, I am running out of time to describe or to delve into in any great detail, but what I will say before I sit down is that it’s a good bill, it’s strong, and I commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s great to be able to rise and speak on this bill. I’d just like to correct something which the previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, said. She was saying that Simon O’Connor was making a jibe, talking about how great it was that we’re progressing more National Party legislation, which is a point which I agree with, but then she went on to say that she wouldn’t be so churlish as to throw out a good bill. Well, I’d like to ask the members on the other side what they’re planning to do about Denise Lee’s bill on gender pay equity, because it’s pretty churlish to throw that one out—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! Sit down. [Interruption] Order! OK, it’s Thursday afternoon; we’ve got a few minutes left—

Hon David Bennett: Let us go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Ah, no. Ha! While I’m on my feet, Mr Bennett, you will be silent. Thank you. I want the member to focus on the bill and not someone else’s bill. I want you to focus on this one. OK? Kia ora.

SIMEON BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a fantastic bill, and, as I was saying, it was progressed by the National Party. As my colleague Nicky Wagner said, the Hon Maurice Williamson, my predecessor in Pakuranga, has also had a big part to play in progressing this bill through the House, and I just want to pay tribute to him tonight as well for what he’s done.

This bill does a number of different things. It modernises the legislation around the Customs Service, as we’ve heard. It replaces the 1996 Act, which was replacing the 1966 Act, and it makes a large amount of changes to legislation which is, essentially, 100 years old, which is well before the time of anyone who’s in the Chamber this afternoon.

It’s also good to hear members on the other side talk about the great work that customs does, and I think it’s important to pay tribute to what our customs officers do on the borders every single day, working to ensure that businesses are able to trade but also ensuring that those who are trying to bring into the country illegal products such as meth are stopped from doing so. I’d just like to pay special tribute to that.

I’d also like to pay tribute to the work they do to stop other drugs such as synthetic drugs coming into the country. It’s important that we focus on that and other substances as well.

Virginia Andersen: Lock ’em up! Lock ’em up, Simeon!

SIMEON BROWN: That’s right, and it’s disappointing to hear that the Labour Party feels that those who supply those drugs can get off much lighter than if they’re supplying other drugs.

So it is great to see this bill go through its third reading with support across the House, and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Customs and—I was going to say “Exercise”—Excise Bill. This is the third reading, and I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri, for shepherding this bill, and also the Hon Nicky Wagner for her commencement of this work.

Look, we’ve all talked on a number of themes around this bill. It is very clear that we, across the House, agree to the changes. It is in fact—and I’m holding up the bill for the Hansard record—a very weighty bill.

Hon Member: They’ve never seen it before.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: See the notes? I’ve been reading through it. So what I would like to say generally is that I found some really fascinating clauses in here, and I’m just going to talk about one. I’d like to acknowledge the member who spoke about the ability to use controlled substances—oh, is that what he was saying? No, I don’t think he was.

I would like to talk about clause 414, fishing. Those of you who know me know that I am a fisherwoman. Now, this clause actually says something really interesting. It says, essentially, that if you are fishing on a New Zealand vessel, then you are not going to be importing fish, but if you are fishing on an international vessel and you’re catching fish in New Zealand waters, then you are, in fact, going to be importing fish into New Zealand. I think that it’s a really interesting point. I find it fascinating how we treat fish caught in our waters, caught on foreign vessels; they are treated as being imported into our country. I just find that really interesting. I think probably at this time of the evening, when everybody has actually been talking and saying, essentially, the same thing—that we across the House all agree—that that’s just something that I would like to mention to my fellow fisher friends.

It was actually Mark Patterson who mentioned about controlled delivery, and I would like to just talk specifically about this. In Tauranga recently, the Labour Party launched the serious crime unit. One of the things that the serious crime unit will be able to do is to access and use these kinds of methods to actually stop at the border or actually stop and let those people get those items directly to their homes so that we can arrest them. Now, the member Simeon has actually—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to use the correct form of members’ names.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Sorry—very sorry.

Kieran McAnulty: Mr Brown.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: The member Mr Brown—

Simeon Brown: Brown without an “e”; just Brown without an “e”.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —Brown without an “e”—has in fact mentioned that we, essentially, are light on crime. I would just like to say that this part of the bill actually refers to how we can actually facilitate that. So I’d just like to mention that to you.

Now, I have a whole pile of other things that I might say but, essentially, we need to get this bill passed in the House tonight, so it is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Isn’t it great to see another beautiful, fantastic piece of work by the previous National-led Government. I just want to address a few points made by previous speakers. There was one point made by an Auckland MP around legislation that this Government has picked up. I challenge you to name one new piece of legislation by—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, the member won’t be challenging me.

HAMISH WALKER: Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is happy hour. When National was in Government, we were committed to supporting Customs, and we worked to protect and promote New Zealanders’ trade and travel. I just want to acknowledge the fantastic work that the customs officials do, especially when you come home after travelling overseas for a few weeks, possibly to Europe, to Austria. You come home, you’re tired, and just that warm Kiwi welcome that they often give you—there’s nothing better. There’s nothing better than arriving back home.

The border is a crucial point in identifying and controlling risks. Before entry or exit from New Zealand, customs have a short window of opportunity at the border to manage risks before goods and people move beyond the airport or port and become difficult to trace. Risks include security, law and order, revenue—and a previous speaker did mention the duty that customs have of collecting international tax; not quite right, but I’d like to acknowledge one of our leading tax experts in the gallery. It’s great to have you here today, sir. There has been significant growth in movements of people, goods, and craft; extensive developments in logistics and technology; and new security risks.

Like speakers before, I just want to acknowledge the excellent work the honourable member Nicky Wagner has done in this area. It’s a very heavy bill, a lot of work has gone into it, and for that reason I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to speak at the third reading of the Customs and Excise Bill. We’ve heard a lot through the contributions today and I just want to add my congratulations to everyone that’s been involved in the passage of this bill, in particular, the New Zealand Customs Service and also the Ministers that have been involved, and, in particular, Minister Whaitiri who will be able to chalk up this piece of legislation, her first piece of legislation, I believe, as Minister of Customs.

There has been a lot said. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation. It’s bringing the Customs Service into the 21st century. It’s all about doing things smarter. Let’s get rid of the old legislation that was highly prescriptive, very much out of date, and unable to keep up with our modern trade environment. This legislation definitely puts the Customs Service right at the forefront—I believe, actually in the world—of being able to have a modern border agency whereby we can obviously be vigilant and have very much a risk focus, but not at the expense of facilitating trade and the passage of goods and craft and the like at the border.

So this is a long-overdue piece of legislation. It’s had a long passage. It’s been thoroughly scrutinised. I was part of the select committee that was charged with examining this bill and it was very thoroughly looked into. I acknowledge Todd Muller, who was the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who actually very capably led our committee through that process.

But, finally, this bill is bringing customs into the 21st century. It’s modernising it. It’s giving it a great, new empowering piece of legislation which will govern its activities. I just wanted to say that one thing that I would have hoped could have been addressed is the title of “Comptroller”—the Comptroller of Customs. That comes from the 19th century and certainly maybe that could have been one thing that could have been updated. But that aside, I do commend everyone that’s been involved in this bill. I’m sure it’s going to be of great benefit to our border, and everything and all of the works that the New Zealand Customs Service do. I am very proud to commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when the House last considered this bill, Jamie Strange had the call and he has eight minutes remaining to speak should he wish to do so.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to continue my speech. I’m looking forward to the contributions on this bill in the next eight minutes. Hopefully, we’ll get a little bit higher quality from the other side of the House. I realise some of the big guns are away today, but it’s almost like we’ve had not the second XI but the third XI rolled out today. But look, I’m looking forward to the contributions to come here.

Now, the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a very important bill. This Government has brought in a number of bills so far in the past 6 months around the area of education. We’ve brought in a bill around national standards and other ones are about to be brought to the House, particularly around the Education Council, putting teachers back on the Education Council. This is a Government who will listen to the education sector.

I began last time by sharing a little bit of my personal story around tertiary education and paying tribute to the quality institutions that we have and the way that this bill provides more power to them to do the job that they need to do. So, as some people may know, I’ve just finished my Master’s in educational leadership and I’ll be graduating next month from the Waikato University, and I would like to particularly acknowledge the Waikato University today for the wonderful work that they do.

Now, we’ve heard from previous speakers around some of the key aspects of this bill. We’ve heard about increasing accountability—and, specifically, increasing the fine from $10,000 to $50,000 for falsifying records. The importance of that aspect of this bill is around integrity. It’s around the integrity and the reliability of our tertiary institutions, and it’s ensuring that there’s honesty within our sector. We’ve also heard from speakers around fair treatment between private and public providers—and I’m going to come back to that soon—but we’ve specifically heard the words “better” and “fairer”, and that’s something that this side of the House fundamentally believes in.

Parliament tends to love acronyms, and there’s an acronym in this bill, the CTEP acronym, which is particularly based upon distinguishing between the CTEP, as opposed to the CTPP—

Hon Ruth Dyson: CTPP—whatever.

JAMIE STRANGE: —A. Ha, ha! So it’s the CTEP, and that’s about distinguishing between for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Mark Patterson: Are they charter schools?

JAMIE STRANGE: Well, we won’t mention charter schools today. So there is a key aspect that this Government believes in, and that’s supporting our public education system and ensuring that our public education system is honoured, respected, valued, and supported.

There’s another aspect that we’ve heard about from previous speakers, and that’s around the international students. Now, international students are an important part of our tertiary education market and we need safety mechanisms in place, and so what this bill practically does is give the authority to school boards so that if an international student has some issues and they play up, then the board can reprimand them, if required, and, obviously, work with their parents around those aspects there.

Now, the importance of education can never be overstated. As someone who taught in an education environment—all of us here have been to school; we understand the value of education. Previously today, we’ve heard about prison and we’ve heard about increasing fines for people for various crimes, but, in my opinion, still the number one key to, particularly, a young person achieving their full potential is around education. Education, quite simply, creates opportunity. It’s important that we value this sector, and that’s what this bill does.

I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Hipkins for the excellent work he’s done since becoming the Minister of Education, and I mentioned some of those bills before. In this one, in particular, he’s taken an average National Party bill and he’s really improved it. It’s sort of like taking a car, putting mags on it—or maybe a tinted paint job, like they have in the Wairarapa—and just really making this car go quick.

So some of the key things around this bill: number one, it gives Government agencies better tools to identify and manage questionable behaviour in tertiary education organisations. As I said before, the key aspects here are you’ve got integrity, honesty, and reliability. The second one is imposing higher consequences where contract breaches or illegal activities are confirmed, and the third aspect is broadening the protection and arrangements for students studying across our system, to support student well-being.

Now, why is student well-being so important? Well, student well-being is all about putting the student at the centre of the education system. Rather than just saying, as a Government, “We’re going to do what we want to do.”, we are going to liaise with the sector. A key point of difference with this Government compared to the previous one is that we will listen, and around education, I’m proud to say that we will put the student at the heart of education.

I wish to thank the members of the Education and Science Committee—now the Education and Workforce Committee—for the work that they’ve done on this bill. We heard 2,000 submissions, so it’s certainly a bill that’s garnered a lot of interest in the public space, and the key reason for that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. It’s come time for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.