Thursday, 5 April 2018

THURSDAY, 5 APRIL 2018

THURSDAY, 5 APRIL 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the annual review debate will continue. The House will consider the first readings of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill, the Privacy Bill, the Commerce Amendment Bill, and the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman will make his valedictory statement at 5.40 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 April, and on Thursday, 12 April, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 1 May.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you to the Leader of the House. Does he anticipate that the annual review debate would conclude next week, or will it run beyond the recess? Also, would he consider moving item No. 20 on the Order Paper further up, so that it might be dealt with in an expeditious manner?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In answer to the last part of the question, no. In answer to the first question, that depends on progress on other matters.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Contact with Radio New Zealand

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in their context.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement regarding Clare Curran’s phone call to Richard Griffin on Thursday, 29 March that “she left a message with the chair around the possibility of correcting the record in writing” and the premise being that she wanted to correct the record as soon as possible?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with the statements made by Richard Griffin in select committee today that “The Minister seemed to be labouring under the impression at the time she left the message that we were to appear that afternoon.”, and that “she wanted me to write a letter to the chair of the select committee … which would then ensure that there wasn’t a public hearing”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, Mr Griffin is a very, very experienced civil servant—so talented that he was that, when he was serving a former National Party Prime Minister, he was mistaken for being the Prime Minister. But as for not answering his phone, I can vouch for the fact that frequently he would not answer his phone—it was more common than not—and when he uses the words “seemed to be”, that means that that’s his impression, but it may not be a fact.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still stand by her statement that Clare Curran sought to contact Radio New Zealand to find an alternative so that they could correct the record immediately, in light of Richard Griffin’s statement today that she wanted him to “write a letter to the chair of the select committee … which would … ensure that there wasn’t a public hearing”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The most efficient way of handling the matter, and in the most expeditiousness of time, would be to write a letter rather than to waste everybody’s time turning up to a hearing. That said, that’s what the Prime Minister is relying on, and I think that unless the member can come up with something else, the molehill is going to remain a molehill.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does it appear to her that the reason Clare Curran wanted to have the record corrected on the Thursday that RNZ was due to appear was not about doing it as quickly as possible but to ensure that there wasn’t a public hearing on the matter?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, for a start, there wasn’t going to be a hearing that day, according to the previous question the member asked. So that disposes of that. The second thing is, Clare Curran, from any reasonable, sane reading of the actions, was seeking to expeditiously put the record straight, and she did.

Hon Paula Bennett: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the contradictory statements of Clare Curran and Richard Griffin, in regards to that phone call on Thursday?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because Mr Griffin used the words “seemed to be”. That owns up to the possibility that he’s wrong. He put it in his very words, and words matter, you know. You can’t just, sort of, convict something because you don’t like them or because you’ve lost power and you’re in Opposition.

Hon Paula Bennett: Says more about him than me—has the Prime Minister sought—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I’ll ask people on both sides of the House just to settle down and I’ll ask Paula Bennett to start her question again, without the preliminary comment.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister sought an assurance from Clare Curran that the Minister never suggested to Mr Griffin that he did not or should not appear before the select committee in person, given Mr Griffin’s understanding of the message he received?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Given that Mr Griffin made that public a few hours ago, it is quite possible that the Prime Minister has not had time at this point in time to react, particularly since Clare Curran is today, again, also not available, and that’s—

Hon Amy Adams: Again?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’s a Thursday, and where’s your man? Where’s your man? If it’s Thursday, he’s not—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, she started it, Mr Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m asking the Government backbenchers to be quiet.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Two points of order—first, the Deputy Prime Minister is answering in the House as if he’s the Prime Minister. So simply saying that she is not available is not a way of answering. Saying “I am unable to answer that on behalf of” would be acceptable.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m in the middle of one.

SPEAKER: No, no, no. We’ll finish this one.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: And the second one, of course, is referring to a member’s absence is inappropriate. And while I’m on my feet, I do think the gratuitous flick at the end of the previous question—

SPEAKER: No, no. Right, I dealt with the third matter already. Going to the other matters, it was not helpful that the Deputy Prime Minister answering for the Prime Minister drew attention to the absence of a particular member. But I must say, it was very much in response to some interjections from the other side, as to the absence of the member he was referring to. I think we’ve just had evidence here of what happens when people, by way of interjection, make out of order comments or comments which are not helpful, which flow on to others. So I think what we’ll say here is that there’s been naughtiness all round and we’ll go back to Paula Bennett for a further supplementary.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So there were three points—you went three, two, and then forgot about one.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, I apologise for forgetting about one. I will remind the Deputy Prime Minister that when he is acting for the Prime Minister, he should use the first person in his answers, when he’s answering in that way.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of the select committee now asking that the recording of that voice message be made public to them, if that contradicts the statements of Clare Curran, does he expect that she will stay in the job?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We don’t deal in hypotheticals; we deal with facts.

Oranga Tamariki—Progress and Priorities

2. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Children: What progress has Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children made in its first year of existence?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. The first year of Oranga Tamariki has been about getting the ministry set up, building its capacity, and improving its core services. It has 160 more social workers, and it has 150 more carers. We have developed and begun implementing a new social work practice framework. We have developed new options and facilities for keeping children out of police cells. We have started giving specialist training and support to people who care for our children and young people, and we have provided care to an additional 500 children.

Darroch Ball: Why has there been an increase in the number of children in the care of Oranga Tamariki?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The number of children and young people in care and protection has increased over the last six to nine months, primarily because the age of care and protection has increased, so there are now more 17-year-olds in care. Children and young people are also generally spending more time in care, and this is because the ministry is working with children and young people and their caregivers for longer, to make a better transition to a permanent home.

Darroch Ball: What are the priorities for Oranga Tamariki for its next year?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: This year, Oranga Tamariki will be focused on improving services for children and young people in the three following areas: driving up the consistency and quality of front-line social work practice; ensuring there are more caregivers, better support for those caregivers, and a higher quality of care placements; and developing new partnerships and strengthening existing partnerships with iwi, Māori communities, and NGOs who provide services to our children and our young people.

Darroch Ball: What decisions need to be made on the future services of Oranga Tamariki beyond this year?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As I have previously strongly supported the decision made to create Oranga Tamariki, I have done so in this House. However, there are still a number of decisions to make on what particular services are required, how they will be provided, and how these will be funded. We need to be clear that Oranga Tamariki was funded on a set-up basis only. This Government believes that New Zealand has the potential to build a world-leading child and youth protection service. However, at the time of last year’s general election, further decisions remained on the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the expert advisory panel report. This Government now needs to make those decisions and to find the money to implement them.

Economic Programme—Tax Changes

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What other tax increases, or new taxes, might New Zealanders face over the remainder of this Government’s term?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): The Tax Working Group is looking into the structure, balance, and fairness of the tax system. Any recommendations they make will, as indicated months ago, not come into force until 2021. Beyond that, as noted before the election and as the Prime Minister reiterated yesterday, alcohol, petrol, and tobacco levies will be adjusted as per normal Government practice. I would urge the member to think back to her time in Government, when her party lifted—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Amy Adams: How much money, then, does he suggest Kiwi families should set aside for possible upcoming taxes, given he’s not prepared to rule out even more surprises coming their way?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Less than they would have, under the previous Government.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he stand by his statement that the Government haven’t introduced new taxes, when in the first six months we’ve already seen a capital gains tax on houses sold within five years, a new regional fuel tax, and now a significant hike in petrol tax?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: All of those were well signalled in the campaign.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this excise new, or is there a precedent for it?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can inform the House that this excise goes back, I believe, to 1927. In October 2009, it was increased—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Thank you.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he really think that when motorists are filling up their cars and find themselves paying up to 25c a litre more, thanks to this Government, that they will agree with the Prime Minister’s statement and his statement that the new regional fuel tax and the fuel excise tax increase are not, in fact, new taxes?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We were clear on this matter during the election campaign. Aucklanders stuck in traffic understand why this Government is willing to allow Auckland Council to levy a regional fuel tax in Auckland: because, after nine years of neglect, that city is a transport basket case. It’s losing $1.3 billion a year in lost productivity because of congestion after a decade of drift and neglect.

Hon Amy Adams: How can the Government claim to be making families better off when this Government has cancelled tax cuts worth $1,000 per year, left 40 percent of children in hardship ineligible for winter heating payments, and made filling up a car around $15 more expensive each time in taxes, that Auckland Action Against Poverty have today described as an attack on the poor?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not responsible for that member’s policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders while other children lived in cars and garages.

Roading—Funding for State Highway Improvements

4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree that the total funding for the State Highway Improvement activity class for the next ten years would be $13.75 billion if the midpoint level of funding proposed in the 2018/19 year continued at that level for ten years without reduction in the draft Government Policy Statement, and what is the difference between that scenario and the total midpoint funding of $8.4 billion that has been proposed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): To the first part of the question, I’m advised by the Ministry of Transport that the member’s arithmetic is correct. The Ministry of Transport advises me that the member’s suggestion would require either a substantial decrease in other activity classes or a substantial increase in fuel excise duty and road user charges. To the second part of the member’s question, the difference between the two scenarios is that the draft Government policy statement, out for public consultation now, rebalances spending towards safety and local and regional roads, and adopts a smaller fuel excise duty and road-user charge increase than what was being considered by the previous Government up until the election.

Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that the advice he’s received from the Ministry of Transport is that the reduction in State highway improvement activity class is $5.35 billion?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Jami-Lee Ross: How can he claim to be helping the regions when cutting $5 billion out of the State highways’ funding will put at risk important regional roading projects across the country, that he’s now expecting people to pay more at the petrol pump for?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the member’s question that reducing State highway improvements is the same thing as taking money away from the regions. For the last nine years, that Government spent 40 percent of the transport budget on a handful of State highway projects that carry 4 percent of vehicle journeys.

Hon Nathan Guy: How will the reductions to State highway funding affect the construction of the Ōtaki to Levin regional expressway, that was described recently as a—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s finished his question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) decides which transport projects proceed after an independent analysis of their costs and benefits. The purpose of this system is to ensure that such decisions are free from political interference—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough as well.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How will the significant reductions to State highway improvement funding affect Nelson’s Southern Link highway, that had a funding commitment of $135 million, and other significant improvements to State Highway 6 and 60 with the region’s very high population, export, and tourism growth?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Mr Speaker, I’m happy to explain again how transport funding decisions are made, if you would like me to.

SPEAKER: No. If the member’s not going to add anything to his previous supplementary answer, no.

Lawrence Yule: How will the significant reductions in the State highway improvement funding affect the four-laning of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, that will support the expansion—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s finished his question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I encourage the member to listen more closely to my previous answers.

Matt King: How will significant reductions to the State highway improvement funding affect the construction of the new Pūhoi to Whangarei regional road that has been identified in the Northland economic action plan as the single biggest driver of growth in the region?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I recommend that the member listen more closely to my answers.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why isn’t he willing to make any commitments to supporting the regional roads that he’s just been asked about, but, when it came to the East-West Link, he was happy to exercise the political interference that he now complains about?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government’s committed to spending more money on roads in the regions. We’re going to spend money on road safety. The choice that the public have today is between a Government that will spend money on passing lanes, on median strips, on side barriers, and on upgraded intersections or a Government of the past that ploughed 40 percent of the entire transport budget into a handful of expressway projects—gold-plated expressways that carried only 4 percent of vehicle journeys.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that the East-West Link costing, which is influencing this Government, was $100,000 per metre?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, it was. The East-West Link solution that was proposed by the former Government would have been the most expensive road project in the world, at $327 million per kilometre.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why did he exercise political interference over decisions around the East-West Link?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: When we took Government, we informed the New Zealand Transport Agency that we expect to see value for money in road projects. The effect of that instruction was that NZTA decided to pull the plug on the gold-plated, wasteful intervention on the East-West Link that that National Party Government was proposing to do.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just noticed that you were being quite tight on the questions—and fair enough. I hope you’re going to be equally tight, and I saw the same evidence, with the answers. But in this case, we had answers to this question—I’ll just ask you to review it later—where the Minister said, “Well, it’s nothing to do with me. It’s an outside body that’s independent.” but then has gone on to answer a number of questions explaining how much it was to do with him. I think some consistency from Ministers would be helpful.

SPEAKER: Sure.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Even though it’s a difficult one for him to answer.

SPEAKER: I think the member would have noticed that when the House was relatively quiet and there weren’t a lot of interjections for the Minister to respond to and he went on too long, I stopped him. When he was invited to go on by multiple interjections from my left, I left him to respond to them.

Roading—Funding for Local and Regional Roads

5. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: By how much will investment in local and regional roads increase under the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Under the draft Government policy statement on land transport, the amount able to be spent on local and regional roads increases considerably. The regional road improvements activity class nearly doubles over the next three years, spending on local roads increases by 43 percent, and we increased State highway maintenance and local road maintenance too. This Government is committed to improving roads in the regions. Half of all vehicle journeys are not on State highways but are on local roads, yet less than 5 percent of the National Land Transport Fund under National’s policy was spent on improving them. This is going to change.

Kieran McAnulty: How does this compare to past National Land Transport Fund spending?

SPEAKER: With a warning that the member is going to have to be very careful.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Regional and local roads are in need of serious investment. National Land Transport Fund spending was reduced in some regions by as much as 30 percent. The amount of the National Land Transport Fund spent on the West Coast, Taranaki, Southland, Otago, Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, and the Bay of Plenty was significantly reduced between 2009 and 2018. This Government policy statement will stop those cuts and invest in our regions.

Kieran McAnulty: How will the Government make local roads safer?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Early work suggests that there may be around $800 million worth of high-value road safety improvements in need of funding on local roads alone. It’s estimated that, once complete, these improvements could prevent 160 deaths and serious injuries per year. That’s less than half the cost of the previous Government’s East-West Link project. Road deaths are not an inevitability; they are the result of choices. This Government will choose to ensure that our family and friends come home safe at the end of the day.

Jami-Lee Ross: How does the $70 million increase in the regional improvements category compensate for the $5 billion cut in the State highway budget?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s part of a package of spending on every other activity class other than State highway improvements, including a 43 percent increase in local roads.

Provincial Growth Fund—Decision Making

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies and decisions regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he arrange for Kelvin Davis to “make the decision”—that’s the phrase he used on radio this morning—on the fund’s $4.6 million grant to the proposed Manea Footprints of Kupe cultural tourism experience in Ōpōnoni?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s necessary for me to seek advice from time to time from the Cabinet Office. As a consequence of having known the late Whetū Naera, chief of Hokianga, a key proponent of this proposal, and having been a champion for the proposal in a distant time when I was a Labour MP, I decided to disclose that and stand back from the decision.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Beyond knowing the trustees, what is his connection to the Te Hua o Te Kawariki Trust, who will receive the money?

Hon SHANE JONES: When I was 25, I led a protest movement party called the Kawariki. That’s the only connection I have with any organisation that has “Kawariki” in its name.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it the case that when he has a connection to a group receiving money from the fund, he asks Kelvin Davis to make the decision, and when Kelvin Davis has a connection to the group receiving the money, as in the case with money going to Ngāti Hine, he makes the decision?

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t know of any connection that Kelvin Davis has to the hapū of Ngāti Hine, and I would warn the Pākehā members of Parliament not to read too much malice into genealogical ties from hapū to hapū.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When the Minister said, on Tuesday, that even if he had been aware of the Ministry for the Environment’s advice that the proposed waste-to-energy scheme did not stack up economically or environmentally, “It makes not one jot of difference to me.”, did he mean that he did not need advice?

Hon SHANE JONES: During the preparation of the announcements, of which the West Coast waste project was one, it has been pointed out to me that my officials did brief me, which I have acknowledged obviously happened, but I find there’s a connection between bureaucratic dross and political amnesia from time to time.

Early Childhood Education—Strategic Plan

7. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to take a more strategic approach to early learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you. Today, I released the terms of reference for an early learning strategic plan. To inform the development of the plan, I’ve established a ministerial advisory group and reference group made up of sector representatives and experts. Public consultation on the strategic plan will occur later this year. Key themes will be raising quality, improving equity, and the role of choice.

Jan Tinetti: Why does he think that the early learning sector needs a strategic plan?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government is very clear that we want to take a comprehensive approach to driving up quality in early childhood education. We cannot do everything overnight. That will take time. We need to agree on a shared set of priorities with those who operate early childhood services, amongst others. By taking a more strategic approach, we can get that level of agreement, and we can make progress over a longer term.

Jan Tinetti: Will the plan address issues in home-based early childhood education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. While the plan is being developed, the officials will also be undertaking a full review of the home-based early childhood education. It is the most rapidly growing part of the early childhood sector, with an over 158 percent increase in enrolments during the early 2000s. So we know the benefits of early childhood education are conditional on quality, and that is what we are committed to delivering in all parts of the early childhood sector.

Roading—Provincial Growth Fund and Local Government Projects

8. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local Government: What discussions has she had with the Minister of Transport about any proposed changes to the funding assistance rates and any expectation of local government’s share of projects funded under the scheme?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): None.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Is it her expectation as Minister of Local Government that councils who are missing out on new roading projects due to the $5 billion decline in State highway funding should apply to the Provincial Growth Fund to get the funding they need?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to repeat the question. I’m just trying to drive down to whether there’s actually ministerial responsibility, as opposed to expectations or views.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Is it her expectation as Minister of Local Government that councils, for whom she is the Minister, who are missing out on new roading projects due to the $5 billion decline in State highway funding should apply to the Provincial Growth Fund to get the funding they need?

SPEAKER: I’m going to allow the question, but I am going to say that I think it’s probably just over the line where I should have ruled it out.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Hon Gerry—are you going to argue with my decision to allow it?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I’m going to help you.

SPEAKER: Ha! You’re here to help, yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Help you feel more comfortable about your decision. The matter in question—because it’s not the last question around this—relates to statements that are in the Government’s policy statement on transport, and refers entirely to local government. That’s why the opening question was, in fact, to find out how much the Minister knew about that.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I could understand the initial question, but after that I’m not sure that they necessarily flow. There’s clear ministerial responsibility for two Ministers, Mr Twyford and Mr Jones, but Nanaia Mahuta—I’m being generous, seeing it’s Thursday—can answer the question.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It is my expectation that local government and the local government sector will engage in feeding back on the Government policy statement on land transport. I’m encouraged by the fact that the Minister responsible for these issues, the Hon Phil Twyford, will be hosting a transport summit in Wellington on Monday, 16 April, and that’s a very good way in which they can engage.

Hon Jacqui Dean: What assurance can she give, given her expectation that councils have to apply to the Provincial Growth Fund, that all councils will be treated equally?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: My expectation is that the Government policy statement will reset the priorities as stated by the Minister responsible for transport to ensure that the long-term strategic view of what gets prioritised will lift the emphasis around safety and the funding for regional and local roads.

Virginia Andersen: How will she represent local government interests during the development and implementation of the funding assistance rates (FAR)?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Government is concerned with costs facing local government and their local communities. I’ve already stated in this House that I am committed to undertaking a comprehensive review on this matter. My role as local government Minister is to have an overview of local government as a whole, and to ensure that the relationship between central and local government operates well and in the context of a partnership. Within this approach, I expect issues affecting local government to be managed appropriately between agencies and the local government sector. A partnership approach—

SPEAKER: Order! It’s too long.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Where are councils not identified as “surge regions” meant to turn to for assistance if they cannot meet the higher FAR contributions expected of them, as stated on page 10 of the Government’s new Government policy statement Q and A sheet this week?

SPEAKER: No. Order! That’s beyond the responsibility of this Minister. That’s clearly roading and the Provincial Growth Fund, neither of which is this Minister’s responsibility. Question No. 9—David Seymour.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no—supplementary. Supplementary.

SPEAKER: A point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s a supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve called Mr Seymour.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I was calling for a supplementary when you—

SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t hear the Minister—the member and I heard Mr Seymour.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, not many times you don’t hear me, Mr Speaker, for goodness’ sake!

SPEAKER: I’m going to—Mr Seymour doesn’t mind waiting?

David Seymour: No problem. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Any further comment before I call Mr Brownlee again?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister consider it appropriate, within the expectations of the Local Government Act, for councils that are struggling to meet the requirements of the FAR formula to make applications for funding from the Provincial Growth Fund to meet that difference?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Much of that policy responsibility falls outside of my portfolio.

Economic Programme—Tax Working Group Outcomes

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government introduce any of the following taxes which were raised by Sir Michael Cullen on 2 March 2018: a financial transactions tax, a wealth tax, an equalisation tax, a capital gains tax, a land tax, a progressive company tax, environmental taxes, and behavioural taxes?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): On behalf of the Minister of Finance, all of these are matters for the tax working group to make recommendations on, but, to reiterate, no outcomes as a result of that tax working group will be implemented until April 2021 at the earliest, as committed to in the election campaign.

David Seymour: Is it not the case that the Minister is using taxpayer money to fund a thinktank for the Labour Party’s next election campaign?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

David Seymour: Why, then, is he using taxpayer money to fund a study into taxes that this Government, as currently elected, has no intention of implementing?

SPEAKER: Order! It can’t possibly be a proper question. This Government is not a time-limited organisation, as the member knows.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: This Parliament is time-limited; Governments are not, as many long years on both sides have shown.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely, he should at least have an opportunity to answer the question himself.

SPEAKER: No, I ruled it out because there was a non sequitur in it.

Commerce Amendment Bill—Benefits to Consumers

10. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What benefits to consumers will be provided by the Commerce Amendment Bill?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: On behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I can inform the member that the most significant element of the Commerce Amendment Bill introduced into the House last week is to enable the Commerce Commission to undertake market studies. Market studies will ensure New Zealand consumers get fair and appropriate treatment by ensuring competitive markets and supporting honest business. This Government is committed to supporting a more competitive, confident, and productive business environment that delivers positive outcomes for all New Zealanders—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you.

Health Services—National Oracle Solution, Appointment of Independent Reviewer, and Conflicts of Interest

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding Deloitte’s appointment as the independent reviewer of the National Oracle Solution IT Programme?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context they were made and taken.

Dr Shane Reti: Have Deloitte and Deloitte-related entities received up to $20 million in funding over the life of the programme?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t have those exact figures in front of me, but I can assure the member that their programme has been extraordinarily expensive, has blown out under the previous Government’s watch, and needs review as a result of that Government’s failure of oversight.

Dr Shane Reti: If Deloitte and Deloitte-related entities have received millions of dollars in funding over the life of the programme, will Deloitte be removed as the independent reviewer?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have been assured that real, actual, or perceived conflicts of interest were appropriately declared before the review was undertaken.

Dr Shane Reti: Was the Minister made aware that New Zealand company Asparona, the implementation partner to the programme, is a subsidiary of Deloitte before or after the appointment of Deloitte?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was not made aware of this appointment initially. I would not expect to be, as Minister. It was done through the all-of-Government process, as the member knows, which was set up by the previous Government.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said in oral question No. 8 yesterday that he will consider releasing Deloitte’s conflict of interest statement, will he also now consider referring the appointment of Deloitte as independent reviewer to the Office of the Auditor-General?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have no reason to do that currently.

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Contact with Radio New Zealand

MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to have this question held over until the Minister is able to answer.

SPEAKER: Is the member seeking for it to be an additional question next week?

MELISSA LEE: Yes.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is. Does the member want to proceed with the question?

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding her meeting with Carol Hirschfeld on 5 December last year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: On behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, clearly I made a mistake in viewing my breakfast meeting with Carol Hirschfeld as an informal meeting. As soon as I realised, I corrected the record and I’ve apologised. I stand by my other statements and actions.

Melissa Lee: Who asked the Leader of the House to provide her with advice that she could call Richard Griffin about his recalled select committee appearance?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Leader of the House offered that advice in his discussions with me about the matter.

Melissa Lee: Does she agree with the statement given today by Richard Griffin that she wanted him to write a letter to the chair of the select committee which could ensure that there wasn’t a public hearing involving Radio New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my answer earlier in the week, my primary concern was ensuring that the record was corrected as quickly as possible, and that was what my message to Mr Griffin was designed to achieve.

Melissa Lee: Does she accept that on the second occasion her office phoned Radio New Zealand, the purpose of the call was not to tell RNZ the select committee had been misled, as she claimed to media on 27 March?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The phone call to Radio New Zealand on the second occasion had a number of purposes. It was clear during that meeting that it was stressed to Radio New Zealand once again that there was an inconsistency in what they had been saying with the facts.

MELISSA LEE: Does she believe that Mr Griffin’s recollection of events was an accurate portrayal of what occurred?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a matter for Mr Griffin.

Melissa Lee: Which part of Mr Griffin’s recollection of events was not accurate?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not going to provide a blow-by-blow commentary on everything Mr Griffin said, particularly as I was not at the meeting where he said them.

Melissa Lee: Did her staff call Mr Griffin on 22 March and tell him that there was an oral question in the House that the issue of the 5 December meeting may arise, and that they expected there would be no comment from Radio New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can answer clearly to the first part of the question: yes. I’m not in a position to answer to the second part of the question.

Melissa Lee: On what date was the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s office first made aware that the Leader of the House was providing her, or had provided her, with advice?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase it to include the responsibility for the Minister. It might be “When did she or her office first make aware”, but the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media does not have a general responsibility for the information flow to the Prime Minister or her office.

Melissa Lee: On what date was the Minister or her office advised of the fact that the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s office was first made aware that the Leader of the House was providing her, or had provided her, with advice?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure on what date the Minister’s office was informed. The Minister was aware on the day that the Leader of the House provided her with the advice that the Leader of the House had done so, because she received it, and she has also subsequently been advised by the Leader of the House that he informed the Prime Minister of that advice on the same day.

Points of Order

Privilege—Freedom of Speech

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a point of order where I am going to ask you to provide a ruling to the House. It relates to Standing Order 410, particularly paragraphs (j), (l), (m), and (n) of that Standing Order. Those particular parts refer to the duty of members. It could be argued that that duty stops and starts inside the House, but it would be the public expectation that the duties of a member of Parliament start the day they’re elected and end the day they are no longer a member. So, sir, noting your response to a privilege complaint which has been rejected, I’m asking that you bring to the House a ruling on how and where you see a member’s duty beginning and ending in relation to House business.

I do this because if it is limited or contained just within the House, then that would mean that almost all the interaction that MPs have with their constituents or with each other in connection with the business of Government or before the House is separated while it’s outside the House from the business that’s conducted within the House, and that makes quite a difficult sort of circumstance. If you then go particularly to paragraph (l), does that now mean that the activity described in paragraph (l), if it is conducted outside the House, notwithstanding the material reason for the activity relating to the matters being considered by the House, is deemed to be outside of any breach of privilege?

SPEAKER: I don’t think I need to come back. I think the matter’s relatively clear, and the member who normally sits next to the member, again, could explain it to him. Privilege only applies to the proceedings of the House. It does not apply—there’s no privilege for MPs doing wider duties, as a number of us have experienced, including a member sitting not far behind him.

Oral Questions—Questions Ruled Out of Order

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I observed earlier today when Mr Seymour was given the opportunity to ask questions—and I think there were two or three questions in rapid repeat—that each time those questions were out of order by you nodding in silence, it concerned me that whilst people in the House knew that those questions were not in order, I don’t know whether the record would state that those questions were not in order, because by you nodding to Mr Seymour that they were not in order, my ministerial colleague was unable to answer. My concern there is that if the record does not record that those questions were not in order, it may appear that we were not answering the questions.

SPEAKER: I’m quite sure that the record will be clear.

Privilege—Freedom of Speech

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A further point of order?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, no. It’s speaking to the point of order. You interrupted my flow.

SPEAKER: The one that I’ve already just ruled on?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, no, the previous one.

SPEAKER: Well, Mr Brownlee, I think you’re beginning to trifle—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I’m sorry, but here we’ve got a situation where you now appear to have clarified for the public of New Zealand that if a member of Parliament threatens another member of Parliament, saying that if they take a particular action in the House—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat.

Bills

Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

This bill represents the continued effort by the Crown to remedy the wrongs of its past actions toward Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are an iwi centred around Maraetai and are members of both Tāmaki and—sorry, I’ve got the—if the House will indulge me for a moment, I’ll just get the right notes for the speech.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have quiet during the point of order. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, my apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on.

Hon Chris Hipkins: The point that I was going to raise was that I was unable to see or hear the Minister who was speaking in what is quite a significant debate in the House, because members on both sides leaving the Chamber were conversing in the middle of the Chamber, and therefore disrupting the overall proceedings of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point of order. It was probably just as well—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I don’t really need it, but—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Any amount of movement in the House does not excuse a Minister from getting on the wrong page of such an important piece of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I don’t think that that’s very helpful. Can I call on the Hon Andrew Little, please, to speak to this important bill.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my apologies for the error on that part. But I now point out that the bill, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and Heretaunga Tamatea signed at Te Aute College in the Hawke’s Bay on 26 September 2015. The deed of settlement settles all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to Heretaunga Tamatea. It comprises, in that respect, historical redress, recording the Crown’s breaches and past injustices; cultural redress, acknowledging connections to land and resources of significance to Heretaunga Tamatea; relationship redress, building new connections with the Crown, local authorities, and other groups; and financial and commercial redress, providing a strong economic base for the future.

Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge those who took the time to make submissions—in particular, all the people who made oral submissions—for their efforts and for sharing their kōrero with the Māori Affairs Committee. I acknowledge the work of the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust, the Heretaunga Tamatea negotiators, Government agencies—especially the Parliamentary Counsel Office—and local authorities for their contributions to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt the member, I’m sorry, for a second. I do think that the member has to actually move a motion and then speak to it, and in the confusion he did not move that it be now read a second time. So if he could do that and then continue on with his speech.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move that the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time, and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —I hope that the House will take as read—

Hon Nathan Guy: Come on, Andrew. Come on, get on your game.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —what I’ve said for the last three minutes, and I’ll continue from there. Mr Guy might want to note that this bill had its first reading in 2015. Why his Government didn’t get off its backside and get this through the House much earlier is a question, no doubt, that he’ll be able to answer when he gets to his feet. But this Government is left to clean up the mess of that Government, including some of the Treaty settlement issues.

I’d also want to acknowledge—[Interruption] Well, the members opposite might be outraged, but it just happens to be true. I would like to acknowledge, however—continuing this very important piece of legislation—the work of Peter Paku, one of the Heretaunga Tamatea negotiation team, who couldn’t be here today because of health reasons. I wish him a speedy recovery and I look forward to him being here for the third reading, which members opposite will be able to celebrate more fulsomely at that time.

I’d also like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee, who considered that bill. The bill has had robust consideration, with the committee focusing on key issues raised in submissions. After the first reading, the bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee and the committee heard 33 oral submissions in Havelock North on 16 February this year. The committee reported the bill back to the House on 29 March this year and recommended that it be passed with a small number of technical amendments. The committee received 47 submissions—46 in support and one opposed. The committee’s commentary on the bill focused on submissions and, in particular, the issue of Glasgow leases at Te Aute.

The land around Te Aute College was gifted by a hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea, Ngāi Te Whatuiāpiti, and is currently subject to Glasgow leases. Submissions focused on the ongoing limitations that these leases have caused, restricting owners from receiving a reasonable return on their land and affecting the aspirations of Te Aute College. The Glasgow leases have been a long-running concern for the Te Aute community.

Glasgow leases arose in the early 1900s when it was considered that long-term tenancy of land was beneficial. The leases gave lessees incentives for remaining on the land for an extended period of time, 21-year lease periods, perpetual rights of renewal, and the ability for lessees to construct and own improvements on the land. This arrangement was appropriate at the time but is not beneficial to the lessor today.

Te Aute Glasgow leases are, however, an arrangement between two private parties and, therefore, options for the Crown to intervene are limited. Throughout the negotiations, the Glasgow leases at Te Aute College were a key matter raised. The importance of Te Aute is also evidenced by the signing of the deed at Te Aute College. And I might say as an old boy of New Plymouth Boys’ High School, that had an annual sports exchange with Te Aute College, I do know of the pride with which that college and its old boys hold themselves and the important place that that college plays in the Hawke’s Bay community and to the Māori community generally.

The Heretaunga Tamatea settlement has specifically provided $5 million to support the long-term sustainability of Te Aute College. The committee considers that this will assist in resolving the issues associated with the Glasgow leases and support Te Aute College to thrive and produce outstanding Māori leaders and citizens, as it has done in the past.

In response to submissions, the committee has also commissioned a report on Glasgow leases. The committee’s commentary on the bill also focused on issues raised in other submissions on the bill.

Another issue for submitters was the effectiveness of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee focuses on resource management and comprises representatives from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and local iwi. The regional planning committee was formed under the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 and arose from discussions during the Ngāti Pāhauwera negotiations. A review of the regional planning committee will be carried out in August 2018, under section 15 of that Act. This will be the opportunity for the parties to assess the operation of that regional planning committee.

The one submission in opposition to this bill was in relation to Wai 574, the Karanema Reserve Claim, and asserts that the Wai 574 claim should be removed from this settlement and negotiated separately. The Crown negotiates with large natural groups and settles all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims associated with a large natural group. Wai 574 is within the Heretaunga Tamatea large natural group. Therefore, Wai 574 remains included in the Heretaunga Tamatea settlement. The committee is satisfied that this Wai claim has been duly and fairly included in this settlement.

The committee has recommended a small number of technical changes to the bill, including updating the legal descriptions of cultural redress sites following the completion of surveys. This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stages of settling the historical claims of Heretaunga Tamatea. I intend to speak in more detail at the third reading when we fully celebrate that settlement. Until then, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. E rau rangatira mā, kia ora mai tātou. It’s a pleasure to speak to this, the second reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. I’m hoping today just to give a little bit of background and to also talk to some of the key items that the Māori Affairs Committee discussed and, if we have time, to also look at some of the items in the deed of settlement that are not covered in this bill.

Heretaunga Tamatea is a large hapū of 15,000 to 16,000 people in the middle of the Hawke’s Bay. As we heard from the previous speaker, during the select committee there were several items of interest that consumed quite a bit of resource. One in particular, a key part of the select committee deliberations, was around Te Aute College and the issue of the Glasgow leases.

To give the background to that, if we just recall, the Heretaunga Tamatea hapū gifted 7,000 acres of land to the Crown for Te Aute College in 1853. The next significant step was in 1916, when the Te Aute Trust Board divided the land into 23 blocks, which were placed under the Glasgow leases. Glasgow leases are also known as ground leases. At that time, the leases were designed for long-term occupation and they were intended to provide the college with a source of income to support the college’s operation.

The Te Aute College lease arrangements have been prohibitive in allowing the college to earn a reasonable rate of return on the land. With Glasgow leases like this, you often get that tension between the landlord and the tenant, particularly in these forms of leases. Clearly, you have the tenant, who is looking for the lowest rent they would pay, and you have the landlord, who’s looking for the highest. The issue is that Glasgow leases are valued on what’s called the unimproved value of the land. Typically, 5 to 7 percent of the unimproved value of the land is how the rent is set, often in seven-year rent reviews but sometimes you have 21 years in perpetuity.

Some of the challenge there, and what has been contested all the way to the High Court, is the definition of unimproved value of the land. There are some who would say the land will never be vacant, will never be unimproved, because by nature of the lease there will never be new structures on it per se. The problem there is that the value of unimproved land is substantial because developers can see an opportunity to develop on it. But in these particular cases, in the Glasgow leases, the lease prohibits that. I think the last time this was substantively traversed was Cornwall Park in the High Court in 2010.

We can understand how Te Aute have got caught up in this dilemma of breaking up their land into blocks that they hoped would produce income for Te Aute, but in fact it hasn’t done that. This truly was a significant issue, if not one of the key issues, for this organisation. We know that, because we can see in the departmental report that He Toa Takitini, the mandated body for Heretaunga Tamatea, informed the Office of Treaty Settlements that they did not consider that the settlement would be successfully ratified by Heretaunga Tamatea if it did not include redress in relation to Te Aute College. So, very clearly, this was a big deal for them and, as we can see in the settlement, $5 million was put aside for the sustainability of Te Aute College. So it’s a very important part of the bill.

I think the second item that received substantial time in the select committee was around Wai 401, Renata Kawepo Estate claim. The issue here was that Wai 401 included interest in Heretaunga Tamatea and the Taihape District. As the settlement was written, it would have expunged all claims for Wai 401. All the parties agreed this wasn’t appropriate or fair, and so there were some amendments made to the bill so that the Wai 401 claimants could progress through the Taihape settlement process.

The third item of substance from the select committee was raised around the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee (HBRPC). Basically, they were concerns from Heretaunga Tamatea that some of the relationships and promises that they’d understood were to be developed with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee had not actually eventuated. The iwi had actually raised concerns with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in 2016 but felt that no substantive discussions of a meaningful nature had continued from there. The regional planning committee was established outside the Heretaunga Tamatea settlement, and so the feeling of the committee was there was no scope in this bill to address that particular issue.

If I could just come back to the Glasgow leases. I think Minister Little also did talk to the fact that the bill was not thought to be the right place to deal with what are private ownership issues around the Glasgow leases—just to conclude that piece of thinking.

I think it’s also important to note those items that are not in the bill—those items that are in the deed of settlement but are not covered in the bill. Sometimes they can be substantive, and all we see is what’s in the bill and think that’s a good settlement. We sometimes forget the other appendages that are included in the bill. I would like to comment on some of them.

The key elements of the deed that do not appear in this bill include various commitments relating to developing the relationship between Heretaunga Tamatea and the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Department of Internal Affairs, Te Papa, and the Ministry of Social Development.

The Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust’s right as a post-settlement governance entity under the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 is to provide for the governance entity’s entitlement to appoint two members to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. So while there were discussions and unhappiness, there was some resolution as to how to sort of resolve that and keep moving. Two members will be appointed to the HBRPC.

The total financial and commercial settlement package, to the value of $105 million—again, not in the bill, but as part of the deed of settlement—includes $5,000, being the on-account payment paid on 23 July to the governance entities for their operations; $7.989 million for the value of the shares held in Kaweka Forestry Co. Ltd; $45,000, being the on-account payment made on 10 March; and $5 million—I may have said $5,000; I meant $5 million—was the gifting to Te Aute to maintain the sustainability of Te Aute, and I just wanted to comment on that part also.

This is a good bill. I think it has clear bipartisan support. There’s some excellent work that’s been done by the select committee on some quite challenging clauses in this bill. It’s certainly with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Madam Deputy Speaker, e tū tautoko ahau ki tēnei pire whakatau i ngā kerēme o Heretaunga Tamatea i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua.

[Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand supporting this Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill in this the second reading.]

I’m delighted to be able to speak in support of this bill at its second reading. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to acknowledge Minister Little and his work in referring the bill to our committee, but in particular I acknowledge the members of the committee and our advisers and all who were involved when we gave close consideration to this bill.

I really love the Hawke’s Bay. I love visiting the Hawke’s Bay, and I want to acknowledge the haukāinga of Heretaunga Tamatea and all the many hapū that gave us such a very warm welcome up into their takiwā just over a month and a half ago. As has been traversed by other speakers, there were a number of issues that were raised, but the overwhelming message that I received as the chair of the committee, from the hearings that we conducted up in Havelock North, was the overwhelming support by the many hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea on the many marae that make up that wonderful grouping of Ngāti Kahungunu—all of the support.

As was evidenced by the Minister, there were 33 submitters that we heard on the day. Yes, it’s actually a very moving time to be able to hear the kōrero that is shared when we consider the evidence that’s presented before the committee, and we heard a range of kaumātua and whānau and had the sharing and the laying before us of whakapapa and photos of their tūpuna and their descendants. To me, that’s the most enduring and memorable part of conducting these hearings as a committee, because we’re able to get the full feeling and the full context from the marae, the hapū, the kaumātua, and all the constituent groups that make up Heretaunga Tamatea.

This is a very large natural grouping, and I want to commend them because it’s a massive ordeal to get to this point in time, and to actually go through a Treaty settlement and all of the various steps that are involved to actually lead to its completion, which we are conducting through the passage of this bill through the House. There’s a significant amount—a huge amount—of work that goes on. It takes many, many years. There are so many huis that must take place. I was very, very pleased that as a committee, we were able to see the strong support that came through very strongly from all of the various hapū and groups within Heretaunga Tamatea.

I wanted to touch on some of the key points, I think, that came through for the committee and that we asked for further advice on. I will touch on the issues around the Glasgow leases and other matters, but, firstly, I want to focus on the issue of—I’ll get to the tough one.

There was a tough issue around the whānau of ngā uri o Te Heipora. These are the descendants of the tūpuna who are largely centred around what is now the township of Havelock North. I wanted to acknowledge that whānau because they gave an impassioned presentation to our committee in the hope that they could be treated separately and that their Waitangi Tribunal claim could progress.

I do want to acknowledge the lady who presented that and who was the named claimant for that claim, because Mereana Wickliffe, who is now deceased—I wanted to give consideration to that whānau in recognition of their mum, who spent many years advocating on behalf of their tūpuna and their connections there through whakapapa. We sought advice on that matter, and it’s not for us as a committee to try and second-guess or reinterpret things, but we were advised that Ms Wickliffe was involved through the various stages of He Toa Takitini as that claim progressed through very many stages. Receiving that advice, it appeared clear to us that they were in support of the settlement to the extent of where we’ve ended up today. But I wanted to pay reference to that whānau for their impassioned and forceful kōrero.

I just wanted to also touch on the issue of the Glasgow leases. It is an issue that tends to rile especially Māori who, like myself, are descendants of reserve lands in the West Coast of the South Island, the top of the South, and around the country. There is such a colourful history around land in this country and Māori tenure and Māori title, and the diversity and the history that’s involved.

This is one such instance, where a magnanimous gesture from the hapū to gift over 7,000 acres to Te Aute College, and subsequent to that, the college subdivided the lands and then entered into these Glasgow leases, which, ultimately, have been to the detriment, I guess, of the college, because they haven’t achieved their intended purpose, which was to provide some revenue to flow back to support the ongoing operations of the college.

This is more a matter for legal scholars, but, clearly, as Treaty settlements, we cannot interfere with private rights matters. However, I think, as a legal doctrine—we all know about contracts that may be unfair. Everyone’s saying they’re unfair, and we all know that there were rules against perpetuity, so things cannot carry on for ever. So I would hope that there is work conducted—hopefully, by the Government—to look into these matters because they are very complex, but clearly it just locks in a perpetual mamae for the landowners.

Now I am pleased, though, that under this settlement—and it was separate, actually. It was the Attorney-General—the Minister wearing his hat as the Attorney-General. He came to an arrangement whereby there is a $5 million payment to support the ongoing, long-term sustainability of the college, and I’m sure that that will be used for such purposes once this legislation in the settlement takes effect.

Lastly, just in the remaining time that I have, I also wanted to acknowledge the submissions that we received around the strong connection that the whānau from Heretaunga Tamatea have to their environment, to their ancestral landscape, and to their water bodies: the aquifers, the lakes, and the rivers. As we know, it’s such a hugely productive region of Aotearoa, and what became clear was the inadequacy of bodies such as the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. I acknowledge the passion that they displayed—and it’s all around kaitiakitanga—and I certainly hope that further work is conducted into that area so that we can come to more suitable arrangements whereby the hapū can exercise their kaitiakitanga.

I commend this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ki ngā hapū, ngā whānau o ngā uri o Heretaunga Tamatea, nau mai ki tēnei Whare.

[To the various tribal groups and descendant families of Heretaunga Tamatea, I welcome you to this House.]

It’s a pleasure to take this call and acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee and the work, the many hours, that they’ve put into what we have before us here this afternoon as a second reading. The committee report recommends a small number of technical changes to the bill, arising from the submissions and changes that are agreed to by the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust. I acknowledge the work undertaken by He Toa Takitini, the mandated entity, on behalf of Heretaunga Tamatea. I know that anything that gets to this point involves many hours of personal, historic, but also just work and sentiments and undertakings, so for me to be here is just one tiny sliver in the narrative.

I’d just like to acknowledge that this deed of settlement will include a package of acknowledgments, an apology, cultural redress, financial and commercial redress—all things that are incredibly important and are, as I said before, historic, personal and just. We would always want, through the passage of this Parliament, settlements that are final and that are durable, and I believe that this particular package is well on its way to achieving that. It’s about strengthening partnerships between Crown and iwi. So what I’d like to do is just simply acknowledge our collaborative agreement for the passage of this bill and for this, the second reading, and acknowledge, once again, Heretaunga Tamatea. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangaranga maha; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

E mihi ana ahau ki ngā uri whakaheke o ngā tīpuna o Heretaunga, o Tamatea. He mihi aroha, he mihi maioha ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the various representative entities, to the many spokespersons and delegates, greetings to you all, indeed greetings to all assembled here.

I acknowledge the descendants of Heretaunga, of Tamatea. I bid you a warm and sincere welcome. Greetings to you all, greetings to all gathered here.]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a welcome to those from Heretaunga Tamatea. I’d like to acknowledge He Toa Takitini, the negotiating body, for this settlement. It was a fantastic experience for me to head, with the Māori Affairs Committee, to Hawke’s Bay to be part of the submissions process. It was the first time I’d been inside that process from that side—from the Government side. Previously, in the North, I had been into hearings, through the Waitangi Tribunal, with my Ngāpuhi iwi. So, for me, it was a great privilege to sit and hear your stories. So thank you very much.

I’d like to acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, for his contribution in the House today and the work that he has undertaken with this and also, too, the previous Minister, Christopher Finlayson, and the work that he did to get to this stage. In the House today, we’ve heard from Dr Shane Reti. He talked quite a lot about the Glasgow leases. I’m sure we will all mention those today because, as Minister Finlayson said in his first speech, they were ghastly—the ghastly Glasgow leases. I will mention them a little bit more. To the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene, thank you for your contribution as well. It was an experience that you talked about and for me to share in that too, and thank you to the whānau, who had such a lovely manaakitanga that we all shared in on the day.

One of the things that Rino talked about was locking in these perpetual mamae from these Glasgow leases, and I think we should really acknowledge that in the House today. During the 20th century, Heretaunga Tamatea hapū and whānau suffered social, economic, and cultural marginalisation, and today more than half of the people live outside the traditional rohe. Heretaunga Tamatea’s wide-ranging historical claims include the alienation of land through the failure to implement the terms of pre-Treaty land transactions; the Land Claims Commission; the deep dispossession of land through deliberately misleading business practices; and the impact of the loss of communal ancestral lands on traditional tribal structure. Heretaunga Tamatea is a large natural grouping of Hawke’s Bay hapū with a population of approximately 15,900.

I’d like to start by looking, really, at the deed of settlement in relation to Te Aute College. I will note that my brother-in-law played rugby for Gisborne Boys’, and he told many stories of the rivalry that they had with the boys at Te Aute and the great games of rugby—but not just the rugby; it was the admiration that they had for the students and the learning that they undertook at Te Aute. Now, in addition to the $100 million package, the $5 million that will be set aside to support the long-term sustainability of Te Aute College is a very worthy point to make inside the settlement. The college has made a huge contribution to the education of some outstanding New Zealanders, and now with the settlement it will continue to guide and realise the full potential of future generations of successful Māori, successful New Zealanders. The lands of the college, as we’ve heard about, have been trapped by what has been termed as “those ghastly Glasgow leases”: 7,000 acres handed over for education but the people remained penniless. It’s a deal that was detrimental to the donors of the gift, detrimental to the school.

Looking at the time line, in 1853, the Heretaunga Tamatea hapū Ngāti Te Whatuiāpiti gifted those 7,000 acres. In 1906, a royal commission was appointed to look at the Te Aute and Wanganui School Trusts. A royal commission recommended the trusts subdivide the gifted land, and by 1916, those 7,000 acres were divided into 23 blocks. The 23 blocks were placed into Glasgow, or perpetual, leases, and we’ve all heard about those peppercorn leases and how detrimental they were until this day. Now, the intention, though, of those leases was to provide an income, and now, through this deed of settlement, there will be security for the school to move forward. I’d just like to note how my iwi, Ngāpuhi, are still yet to settle, and noting on this that a school, Hato Pētera, as we’ve all heard, is down to its final student. So it is a shame that we haven’t been able to move forward with our settlement and ensure that one of our schools is kept safe into the future.

I’d also like to talk about the experience of going into Hawke’s Bay—into the region—and note the contamination, back in August 2016, of the drinking water that caused an estimated 5,500 of Havelock North’s 14,000 residents to become sick with campylobacteriosis. Forty-five were subsequently hospitalised, and it is possible that the outbreak contributed to three deaths. The drinking water that was sourced from Te Mata aquifer, under the Heretaunga Plains, was thought to be a safe, confined source of water. We had a couple of submissions from Waipatu Marae, and they talked about the water and what it really meant for them through this campylobacteriosis incident. They, basically, had to say that the tino rangatiratanga lies in the hapū hands and that they had been advocating for clean water for quite some time—that if they had been listened to earlier, this whole water emergency could have been avoided, and it was a slight on their kaitiakitanga over these aquifers. We heard from Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga Trust. They talked a lot about the freshwater management, and they still felt that they were in a position of subservience and how their aspirations of mana whenua were still to be recognised. They also talked about how, when they had visitors come to their regions and their water was unclean, there was that whole perception; that their visitors would recoil in horror if they were offered a drink of water. That mamae continues from that incident.

It was a pleasure to hear from Waimarama Māori marae. This is a coastal settlement located in very close proximity to Waipuka land blocks. Waimarama Māori marae, gazetted under the Māori Reservations Act, had jurisdiction of some land from Cape Kidnappers to Porangahau. A lot of their land was placed for soldier resettlement—this was at the end of World War I. The Government initiated the gifting of land for returned servicemen. This excluded, though, Māori servicemen from any of the proceedings. So, I’d like to acknowledge Waimārama Marae. Also, Kohupatiki Marae—we heard at the hearings from the Hon Meka Whaitiri. This was her marae, so I’d like to make note of her and the discussions she had. She told us about how her marae is on the banks of the Clive River and how they can no longer whitebait there.

Finally, I’d just like to mention, in closing, Tamatea. My nephew is named Tamatea, so it’s a name I hear every day. He lives in my home, and he’s a delightful young man. His father—my brother-in-law Michael—did a lot of shearing in the area. He sheared with his dad, Boy Winiana. Michael tells stories of how he would jump the train and take a ride to Otane, where his grandmother, Nanny Ma—also known as Nanny Gorgeous—lived and the time he spent in the area shearing, and time with his nanny, who is now buried in the urupa near Pukehou Marae.

So, in conclusion, “Heretaunga”, the whakataukī that I would like to read now: “Heretaunga haukū nui, Heretaunga, ararau, Heretaunga hāro o te kāhu, Heretaunga takoto noa.”

[“Heretaunga, a life-giving dew; Heretaunga, of Arcadian pathways; Heretaunga, beauty of which can only be seen by the hawk; Heretaunga that has been left to us, the humble servants.”]

New Zealand First supports this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been an MP for three years, and this is the first Treaty settlement bill I’ve spoken on, which I’ve got to say is reasonably unusual, given that in the last Parliament, when the National Government was in charge, it put through a whole series of Treaty settlement bills. But I haven’t had the privilege and distinction of serving on the Māori Affairs Committee in that time, and typically it’s the people who hear the submissions and consider the bills in detail who end up speaking. So I actually consider this a bit of a privilege. So it’s a bit of special moment for me, really, to be able to speak on an important bill for the people of Heretaunga Tamatea that provides a settlement for their historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.

As I said before, I know that I’m not on the Māori Affairs Committee, which I know Rino Tirikatene does a very good job of chairing. One of my colleagues from my patch, Rino does a good job around the community of Pētone and other areas in the Hutt. He does a good job chairing the committee. I know that they heard 40 submissions and heard oral evidence, including in Havelock North, which was very important—to go to that particular area and hear that evidence.

As other speakers have made mention, this gives effect to that deed of settlement, signed by the Crown and Heretaunga Tamatea, to that final settlement. It gives effect to the settlement of alienation of claims through the failure to implement the terms of the pre-Treaty land transactions, the Land Claims Commission, the dispossession of land through deliberately misleading business practices—something that was very common of the Crown of the time and for other iwi, including Heretaunga Tamatea—and the impact of the loss of communal ancestral lands on traditional tribal structures.

This is a claim that has taken some time to result. The mandate was recognised in March 2007—so some 10 or 11 years ago—and then it took seven years to reach the agreement in principle on 11 June 2014. Then, of course, the deed was signed in September 2015, and now we have the legislation before the House. It is going to go through the Parliament, as is traditional now with Treaty settlement bills, unanimously. That’s a fantastic thing. It’s not always been the case that Treaty settlement bills have been unanimously agreed to and the subject of no dissent, but it is certainly true of the Parliament today. That’s a wonderful thing for the future of New Zealand, both in an economic sense but also in a harmony sense.

Members before me have talked about Te Aute College, and it seems like everyone’s got a connection to Te Aute.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Tell us yours.

CHRIS BISHOP: My only connection there is through debating. And I’ve had a bit to do—

Hon Stuart Nash: I knew it wouldn’t be through rugby.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s very mean from the member for Napier. The member for Napier yells out, “It wouldn’t be for rugby.” That’s true. I was a hopeless rugby player.

But Te Aute College has produced some fantastic orators—that fine tradition of Māori oratory on the paepae, and they have produced some very fine debaters. So my only connection is adjudicating Te Aute College a few times, and I’ve been in the mighty Hawke’s Bay—Stuart Nash’s patch—and adjudicated secondary schools debating, which I know he is a big supporter of, as well.

Look, I don’t want to take up any more of the House’s time on this excellent bill. I just commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too would like to acknowledge what a privilege it is to stand in the House and speak on Treaty settlement bills. I am now speaking on this bill on behalf of the Green Party, for the second reading, and when acknowledging Catherine Delahunty who spoke for us at the first reading as our Pākehā Te Tiriti spokesperson—it is a big job to step in to her shoes.

I would like to start by acknowledging a point that she always made in her speeches that, really, the work of committing to new partnerships and acknowledging the past wrongs is primarily the job for Pākehā. For too long these discussions and the burden of these unresolved grievances have been borne by Māori, and the responsibility of speaking to them has been left with Māori, when, in actual fact, the job and the work to be done is work for Pākehā.

Also, it is traditional for the Greens, on all readings of Treaty bills, to acknowledge that for us Te Tiriti is not just about property rights; it is about an ongoing relationship between iwi, hapū, and the Crown. As such, Te Tiriti can never and should never be settled. It is a relationship.

It is also, I guess, our tradition to acknowledge that through the process of these so-called settlement bills, tensions are often still created by ongoing Crown policies. One of those policies is the policy to settle large natural groupings, which makes this process easier for the Crown but does not reflect the true intent of Te Tiriti, which was a relationship between the Crown and hapū. We have again seen that in the process of this bill coming to the House, with the one opposition submission coming from a whānau who did not support the designation of this large natural grouping, at least in their submission.

But the Greens are always in support of this. We acknowledge that the process—it’s been mentioned, 11 years through this part of the process. But, clearly, for Heretaunga Tamatea this has been well over 100 years of raising their voice, coming together, organising, and doing whatever they could to be able to challenge the unjustifiable theft of their land and the breaches of the Treaty. So it is important to acknowledge this moment and this step closer to a new beginning for this group of people, and for all of us as a country in having the opportunity to understand a little bit more of our history so that we can move forward into a better future for all of us.

Just to speak to some of the points that were raised through the submissions, many of which have been raised by previous speakers, and I will touch on them again. Specifically, I understand, from the 47 submissions, 33 oral submissions, that Te Aute College and the issue of the Glasgow leases, which have been mentioned, was of very significant concern. In the settlement it’s a specific application of $5 million to support the sustainability of Te Aute College and a $10,000 ex gratia payment by the Ministry of Justice to support their trust board to gain advice on how to alleviate the issue of the Glasgow leases.

This is really important, particularly in how we’ve seen so many of the Māori legacy schools lost to our communities over recent times, and the very special place that Te Aute College plays in the history of this country and the support and the development of some quite significant Māori leaders, who we’ve all benefited from. So there was strong support for that, and it’s great to see that the Māori Affairs Committee has commissioned a report, I understand, on the Glasgow leases. So this is not work that is finished here; actually, there will be ongoing work on that issue.

Also, to acknowledge concerns that were raised by multiple submitters around the effectiveness of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee—it is about the core around Treaty relationships, that regional planning committees engage with mana whenua in making the decisions on the use of land. Submitters raised concerns that the planning committee, who works to oversee and review the development of the regional policy statement and regional plans for the Hawke’s Bay region, were not, in their view, living up to their commitment. So while this wasn’t an issue resolvable within the scope of this bill, because the regional planning committee was formed separately to the settlement, my understanding is that there is a formal review of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee that will be happening from August 2018. So, again, this process does not end here.

I also did want to just briefly touch on, as well, that while there are elements of this settlement that include standard commercial and cultural redress, there are distinctive aspects relating to the vesting and gift-back of Cape Kidnappers Gannet Reserve and Cape Kidnappers nature reserve, and that those, I think, do offer another indication of the important role that mana whenua often play in kaitiakitanga, which is to the benefit of all of us.

In the final moments, I did just want to speak to some of the points that were raised from He Toa Takitini and the principles that led them in this work towards this settlement because I think they are important to acknowledge through this process. One of the principles was working to have acknowledged the huge generosity of Ngāti Kahungunu to the people of Hawke’s Bay and to us as a country: that Ngāti Kahungunu looked after the settlers who went on to exploit and take their land and dispossess them, that they maintained a spirit of peace in response to that significant grievance that they are still carrying today from the loss of their land and their opportunities and the poisoning of their waters that fed them previously, and that right through that process they organised peacefully and sought to engage constructively.

What they received in return were lies and promises to act that were never fulfilled. How people move on, with 150 years of that happening, to me is quite extraordinary and needs to be acknowledged. When we hear so much of the rhetoric through stories of negative statistics, we miss the true resilience and the mana of the people who have been so badly treated by our Crown and our settlers. So I think one of the key things of this process is to restore and acknowledge the mana that should never have been denied of Ngāti Kahungunu. Thank you.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, second reading, and I acknowledge the people in the gallery who are from Heretaunga Tamatea, who have actually been instrumental and drivers in getting to this point. I also acknowledge Havelock North High School, who are in the gallery, and all three Hawke’s Bay MPs are in the gallery, so this is a great day for the mighty Hawke’s Bay to signify this significant second reading.

I do want to thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, for getting it back into the Parliament. I want to particularly thank the Hon Chris Finlayson for the significant work he did in shepherding this bill from the initial deed through to the signing, which I attended in September 2015 at Te Aute College. At that stage, I had no idea I would be a member of Parliament.

This claim, effectively, affects people from south of Napier right to Takapau—and is the majority of the electorate I represent. It is made up of fine people, people who are represented in this gallery, with tremendous vision, courage, mana, and integrity. As previous speaker Chris Bishop said, I expect this will go through the House in a unanimous way, and that’s largely because of the way it’s been handled to this point, the way in which the Hon Chris Finlayson shepherded it to this point, and also the way in which those negotiating the claim for the people from Heretaunga Tamatea stepped up to the mark.

There is a lot of history here. People have spoken about Te Aute College, and while the $5 million is nice and is a great contribution to the integrity and sustainability of the college, it actually does not deal with the real issue that is behind this. I want to say in this House that while I’m heartened by what’s being done here, we actually need to find another way to deal with the Glasgow leases. I say this deliberately in front of my fellow Hawke’s Bay MPs. I don’t think we will find a cute legal solution. I actually think the Crown will have to buy those leases out or otherwise Te Aute College will be forever shackled by unfair disadvantage.

The reason I know this is just before I became the Mayor of Hastings, the former Mayor of Hastings Jeremy Dwyer, who had substantial connections with Te Aute College, brought to me a lease agreement because he didn’t know anything about farming and at the time I was a farmer. He said, “Lawrence, have a look at this.” I did have a look at it, and I was horrified at the terms and the cheapness of the leases and the terms in which they were under—to the complete advantage of the farmer and the complete disadvantage of Te Aute. That continues to this day, and it simply is not fair. Even since I’ve been a member of Parliament, I’ve had conversations with the Hon Christopher Finlayson about options for this. But it in the spirit of what we’re trying to do, I’m asking this House to think about, outside of the Treaty settlement process, whether there is a way the Crown can actually make this right, because without it this grievance is going to continue.

I want to say to the people from Heretaunga Tamatea who are here today, I understand, and I get that. It is completely unfair, and I will do all I can while I’m in this position I have, to work with colleagues on the other side of the House to find a solution. It is great that $100 million or thereabouts has come out as part of this settlement. I also acknowledge the courageous decision to spend part of that $100 million on individual marae; in other words, $1 million roughly, I think, to each individual marae. That is a huge decision, and I applaud the decision makers for that.

As a member of Parliament, it’s actually an absolute privilege to stand up and say these things in front of representatives of the claimant group at this second reading. To you, please keep coming. I don’t think this will be taken off its rails. It will go through its process, but there are some things to tidy up and you should have confidence that we are doing all we can to address the longstanding grievances, one of which is the Glasgow leases that still remain. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—five minutes each.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnei e tū ake ki te tuku ngā mihi ki a koutou i tae mai nei ki te whakarongo ki ngā āhuatanga kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare e pā ana ki ngā take Tiriti. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

[I stand here to acknowledge those of you who have come here to listen to deliberations before the House which relate to Treaty matters. Therefore, to you all, greetings.]

It is a great privilege to be able to offer a few comments at the second reading on this particular bill, because the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Heretaunga Tamatea claims settlement is something of, I guess, a bit of a guide and some encouragement for other Treaty settlements coming through the pipeline. So, first and foremost, I wanted to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson. In his first reading speech he set out, quite succinctly I might add, the historical context within which this particular claim was coming to the House, but he put in context what was being challenged in terms of the Crown not upholding its obligations.

So, in summary, we can’t ignore the fact that there was once a time when around about 1.4 million acres was the domain of the people who come here to this House now, and they lost around about 1.2 million acres of that land in a period of time after quick succession between the 1870s and the 1880s as a result of native land law—a great proportion of their tribal rohe. But I was really moved when I went back to read the speech of Minister Finlayson and he highlighted something I suspect he heard when he was going to gather his own evidence and information about the foundation for this particular claim. There was a phrase he quoted that there’s nothing more compelling than the statement from Heretaunga Tamatea people, when they said, “Being tangata whenua without whenua is something people can’t comprehend.” I think it is hard to really make sense of that in contemporary terms unless you’ve lived and experienced the loss, the significant loss.

I also draw on that statement because it is evidence of a population of around about—at the time of reaching settlement, I understand—15,900 people. A great majority of those people live outside of the rohe. So while we’re talking about a settlement in which I think a lot has been achieved, reconnecting and connecting people back to their place, their papakāinga, their marae, in such a deliberate way, to build the sense of pride and identity of the Heretaunga Tamatea people, I think is very, very important.

The other thing I wanted to comment on briefly was the fact that Te Aute—some comment has been made today around Te Aute. I heard the remarks of the previous speaker Lawrence Yule, and I too acknowledge that the issue of the Glasgow leases remains outstanding and they haven’t been addressed. While in part this settlement tries to, I guess, shine a light on the future opportunity of Te Aute being sustainable, it won’t fully be sustainable until the issue of the Glasgow leases is resolved, on which point, I should add—this is the subject of a delegation that has come to raise this very issue with me as the Minister for Māori Development—that I am keen also to see some approach to seeing if this could be resolved.

It wasn’t picked up during the amendment to the Māori Reserved Land Act. This is a very difficult issue, which is why the previous Government couldn’t deal with it, and I’m not under any illusion that it will be easy for this Government either. But we will embark on a journey to be able to see if there is a way. If there is a way, it will require agreement across the House if we’re able to get to some kind of solution.

The other thing I wanted to add is that there were very few challenges raised by the Māori Affairs Committee in terms of the substance of the bill, which is why this is a brief contribution. So with that said I want to acknowledge He Toa Takitini. I want to acknowledge the negotiators. I want to acknowledge, actually, for those who understand just how difficult it was, that it was a special factors presentation that was made that, I understand, took this settlement, kind of pushed this settlement right to the outer limits of what could be achieved. So I commend them for their strategy, their foresight, and their fortitude to ensure that a settlement resolves outstanding grievances that can rebuild the capability, the cultural pride of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Heretaunga Tamatea. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in relation to the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. I’ve not spoken on Treaty settlement bill before, but it does seem to me that the character and nature of these things is somewhat special and unique. I’m conscious of, perhaps, a sense of history for those involved: those who are present—physically present here today—and I acknowledge them, but also those who might be following from afar; and, also, those who are in the present time but also future generations who will see the benefit of the significance of what is being decided, in effect, here today. I acknowledge all those who have been involved at prior stages of the passage of this legislation, including the Māori Affairs Committee, and also Minister Little and—as he then was—Minister Finlayson for their passage, in conjunction with the many affected parties who it appears to me—somewhat from the outside, in terms of my own involvement—have played a constructive role in good faith to bring some resolution to a matter of some historical pain and distress.

I just wanted to focus briefly on a couple of words from the introduction to the bill that, to me, seem significant in terms of what it is that we are deciding or deliberating on here today. The first is the word “alienation”. The historical claims of these people from the Hawke’s Bay include the alienation of land through the failure to implement the terms of pre-Treaty land transactions. That word “alienation”, of course, has a technical meaning in the sense that it was lands alienated or taken away, but I also think that it’s got another significance in the sense of making the parties alien to each other, alien from the land, made other, or made separate in that sense. So it seems to me, as part of the healing and the acknowledgment that we are undertaking as part of this process, that we acknowledge that separation, and that we can bring, at least to some extent, a land and a people back together in that way that is both physical but also emotional.

Similarly, the word “settlement” in the bill’s title, of course, is inherent to the nature of the process that we are undertaking. “Settlement”, again, has a technical meaning in terms of land law—meaning, of course, the completion of a transaction. But, on another level, we might think of settlement as being the act of settling or the act of bringing some calm or resolution to a matter—again almost in an emotional as much as a physical or, certainly, a material sense.

So for all those reasons, it seems to me that this is very worthwhile opportunity for Parliament to go some way towards completing a process that has been very long running and very significant. It is a privilege to be part of it and I acknowledge all those others who have also been a part of it, and wish all those concerned the very best for the future.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ki a koutou i Heretaunga Tamatea, Ngāti Kahungunu, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. He hōnore nui ki te tū i mua i a koutou ki te tautoko i tēnei kaupapa.

[Heretaunga Tamatea, Ngāti Kahungunu, I greet you, you who honour us at this time. It is my great privilege to stand before you in support of this important event.]

I make a short contribution today, because some of the kōrero that’s gone out from both sides has been exceptional, and I value these types of kōrero because we have a House that’s in unison and acknowledging the injustices of the past. It’s great we have a Parliament that has reached that stage, so I acknowledge the other side and the previous speaker, Chris Penk, and, in particular, the previous Minister, Chris Finlayson, who without doubt has done a terrific job in advancing some of the Treaty settlements over the last few years. At the same time, I acknowledge the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, who’s got it all in front of him—all in front of him—and he certainly has a challenge.

I also want to acknowledge members of Heretaunga Tamatea who have passed on since the lodging of the claim. Many of the original claimants are no longer with us—too many to name—but their commitment and contribution to where this settlement is today should be rightfully acknowledged and honoured. And, of course, I acknowledge our rōpū who are here today, some of the negotiators who are here today: ngā mihi ki a koutou. I think we have Elizabeth Munroe, I’m not sure if Peter Paku’s here, Brian Morris, Elizabeth Graham, Cordry Huata—the negotiators of a claim that I think that has been well thought through and well negotiated.

I want to pick up on the point that our Green MP Jan Logie made earlier in terms of the contribution that Māori make to this country and to this economy. I think that is always underrated when we go through a settlement process like this. In particular, when we look at the settlement package here and we look at a total value settlement of $105 million, of course, that’s a very good settlement in comparison to other settlements. However, if we really want to look at loss and sacrifice and at what Māori have gone through, we need to take that into account. I’m sure, as our negotiators will know and other people in the House would know, if we look back on past settlements in terms of Tainui and if we look back on past settlements in terms of Ngāi Tahu, in those settlements, the economic loss value was valued by top economists. For Ngāi Tahu, it was $20 billion—$20 billion—and Ngāi Tahu settled for $180 million.

So that’s what you call sacrifice and contribution in terms of this country. That’s what you call sacrifice and that’s what you call contribution in terms of this country. So my hope is that people don’t get all silly when they look at a group that’s maybe done well in terms of other groups, but in the overall context of loss and sacrifice, this country can’t pay for the loss and sacrifice that our people have made. There’s just no doubt about that. So I mihi to these negotiators for this settlement, that is a very good settlement.

I note some of the excellent kōrero from before about the total value settlement of $105 million, $5 million in support to Te Aute College, and a memorandum of understanding with the Aorangi Māori Trust Board, including an ex gratia payment of $1 million and a right to purchase 10 surplus Crown properties. These are the types of settlements we need to see. The key points—I know that the Hon Meka Whaitiri will elaborate more, but I think it’s good to just break down, a little bit more, parts of the settlement, with Heretaunga Tamatea being one of six—I’m not sure if that’s been mentioned yet—large natural groupings of Ngāti Kahungunu who have negotiated this settlement in terms of their historical Treaty claims. It is a population of about 15,900 with land interests extending from south Napier to Takapau in the Hawke’s Bay.

The history of Heretaunga Tamatea has been mentioned this afternoon. The 19th century, in particular, was marked by land alienation, warfare, and socio-economic deprivation, and the 20th century was marked by social, cultural, and economic marginalisation. As we heard today, the hapū themselves have said they have been the tangata without the whenua, and how many iwi and how many hapū can say that type of thing?

So I just say well done, and it’s such a long process, this. Our people know, when they go into this process, the long, protracted process it can be. It can go on and on and on. In Heretaunga Tamatea’s case, it was from March 2005, when they negotiated their claim directly with the Crown. Their mandated entity, He Toa Takitini, was recognised by the Crown in February 2011, with terms of negotiations signed on 19 December 2011—seven years ago. Seven years ago. So justice takes a while to come through. On 11 June 2014, the Crown and Heretaunga Tamatea signed an agreement in principle. The deed of settlement was signed on 26 September 2015, and deeds to amend were signed on 16 February and 13 June 2017, providing for updated arrangements in relation to the Kāweka Crown forest licensed land.

So I mihi to this Heretaunga Tamatea group for—we’re only in the second reading, and we have another reading to go, but, in my view, the more we talk about this type of kaupapa, the better for our people. This is such a long process that our groups and our people deserve their stories to be told in the House, in the media, and on the TV, and New Zealand needs to be reminded of the type of contribution that our iwi are making and that our people are making. The point is that they make it in an understated way. There’s no, sort of, putting anything in anyone’s faces, and anybody who objects to it—you have to ask the question. Anyone who objects to this type of settlement, you have to ask why, why, why—particularly when we get a House like this, where there’s a unanimous view that a huge injustice has taken place.

For myself, it’s always one of the better times to talk in this House, rather than at other times when we might get a little bit excited and a bit carried away in terms of the different kaupapa that we put out there. So these are the times, I think, to value and celebrate. These are the times for the House to be proud, where we can mihi to each other and where we can acknowledge the contribution from both sides. They are days, I think, when Parliament should be very proud.

So well done to everyone today in terms of acknowledging this. There’s still some way to go, but, again, to our manuhiri who have come here today to honour this settlement I say, ngā mihi ki a koutou. Rawe ki te tautoko i te kaupapa. Ngā mihi ki a koutou i kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa i ngā wā katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, a, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[I say, well done to you all. It is great to support this occasion. I congratulate all of you who have always worked towards this outcome. Well done to you all. Greetings to all of you, indeed greetings to all assembled here.]

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe hoki. Ki ngā hapū me ngā uri o Heretaunga Tamatea; e mihi ana ki a koutou i haere mai nei i tēnei wā.

[Greetings to you, also. To the tribal entities and the descendants of Heretaunga Tamatea, I greet all of you who have come here today.]

I stand to take a brief call. I acknowledge you of Ngāti Kahungunu here today, and I look forward to when we move this through to the final reading, when you will gather in force and in strength, as you are today. I also acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and the Hon Andrew Little for the mahi, the work, that’s been given towards progressing this matter, and also fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee.

I acknowledge you Ngāti Kahungunu, Heretaunga Tamatea, as, myself, uri of Wanganui and also MP of Whanganui. I acknowledge you because I connect and relate to the journey that you have endured—you but also your tūpuna. I acknowledge that the connection that I have with you is not only as one who’s endured that journey with my tūpuna, with the reaching of the settlement of Te Awa Tupua, but also the relationship that I have as uri of Ngāti Tūpoho of Wanganui and my marae, Pūtiki W’arenui a Tamatea Pōkai W’enua. Ngā mihi, Ngāti Kahungunu.

I also had the privilege for the first time as an MP, a National Party member of Parliament, to partake in my first hearings in participation as a Māori member of the Māori Affairs Committee at your hearings in your rohe. I listened intently to all who spoke and also to those who didn’t. The nature of the hearings and the journey that we embark on, and our tūpuna, is fraught and mixed with so much emotion. So your journeys and your emotions I acknowledge, I sense, I feel, I know. However, I listened to the mamae and the distress and the frustrations as to the process and that which was felt due. I listened also and observed the hope and the goodwill that was at your hearings. And I know, because I believe in your abilities, that in your journey, despite the anguish, we will move forward and we will progress, and we embrace that opportunity.

Your stories, his-stories, her-stories—they are yours. And it is that in your knowing. And from this I believe and I know that you have the confidence and the ability to move forward. Simply, we must do; thus we do.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee for the first time participating and listening, I heard the mamae, I heard the anguish, and as members of the Māori Affairs Committee we took heed of that. That has been noted in the amendments, and they’ve been stated as being a small number of technical changes, but may I just encourage and say that those small technical changes are significant. And I trust that you will embrace that accordingly.

There’s been the kōrero about the Glasgow leases—Te Aute College. As I sat there and I listened to the anguish of that, my connection with you, at Te Aute, was through a tupuna of mine, Porokoro Pātapu Pohe, flight officer of the Royal Air Force. He was an old boy of your school. The connection that I have as uri of Wanganui and the whenua that was there for the laying of foundation of Wanganui Collegiate School. Te Aute College and Wanganui Collegiate School have had an enduring association not only through the Anglican churches but through our tūpuna, and that enduring relationship is one that, over the decades, I’ve had the privilege of attending as a parent of a schoolboy of Wanganui Collegiate School, who expressed that he would liked to have gone to Te Aute College. However, he attended Wanganui Collegiate School because we are of Wanganui, nē rā.

So Te Aute College, the Glasgow leases: fraught with difficulty but, in hearing my colleague Lawrence Yule talk about that, there is a way forward—and in hearing the Hon Nanaia Mahuta addressing that also. We will endure and we will continue the good fight.

I had the privilege also of listening too. And I hope that in some small way I was able to contribute to clearing the pathway to facilitate the issue of the Wai 401, Renata Kawepo Estate Claim, the people who also had that link to Taihape, and keeping that claim open. That too is my link; that is part of my whakapapa.

I turn briefly also to the significance of Wai 574, the Karanema Reserve Claim, about that not being included. However, I acknowledge that it is not for the Crown to say how things should be done. You know how to resolve those issues amongst yourselves, and you’re entrusted to do so.

So, in closing, may I just conclude that this is the second reading. I commend this bill to the House for its passage to its final journey to the third one, and I look forward to embracing you all in your attendance that day. Kia ora.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe, otirā, ngā Mema o tēnei Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. He mihi tuatahi e te iwi o te haukāinga kua tae mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, indeed greetings to all of the members of this House. Let me begin by acknowledging those from the tribal homelands who have come here, greetings, welcome, greetings, welcome, greetings to you all.]

It’s indeed an honour to rise in support of the second reading of this Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, firstly, as a descendant of Heretaunga Tamatea, but also the proud member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, which electorate this settlement sits within. I also want to acknowledge too, first and foremost, the many claimants. Without those claims, we wouldn’t be here addressing this important bill, so I want to acknowledge those, particularly those that are no longer with us. I also want to acknowledge the many hapū and marae who actually face the brunt of the losses, particularly of land, at the omissions of the Crown. So I want to acknowledge our marae. I too want to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and, of course, our Minister Andrew Little. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee.

The second reading, for those that may be at home watching, is the time when we report back to the House on the examination of this bill at select committee. I want to share with the House that I attended the hearing at Havelock North—not to sit on the committee but actually to sit in amongst the crowd, to hear the multiple submissions. I want to say that getting asked to sit on the committee by the chairman of the select committee—it was indeed my honour to do that. I want to acknowledge one of the opening submitters, who goes by the name of Ngāhiwi Tomoana. I don’t want to, because I cannot, paraphrase how he started his submission, but essentially it went like this: “It’s ironic that you’re holding this select committee in Havelock North, which 12 months ago had the largest outbreak of gastroenteritis that this country has known, when 5,000 people went down.” He then went on to say something around body parts and the multiple use of toilet paper, as his introduction as to why we were in Havelock North. So I just want to acknowledge that even though these are serious bills that we’re considering, there is a light side in terms of the relevance of why we had the hearing in Havelock North.

There were three issues that the select committee raised, and I want to talk of one that’s obviously been well traversed in this House, and that is Te Aute Glasgow leases. It may be helpful for the House to just, again, capture what we mean by Glasgow leases. The ground leases, or the Glasgow leases, allow the lessee to build a permanent structure. They have been used in colonial times to transfer land usage rather than ownership for a specific purpose. They have a usual term of 21 years and can be renewed in perpetuity. Any rent reviews are conducted on a current market valuation, and valued by an appropriate registered valuer. While they have the potential to continue for ever, the tenant, however, can bring them to an end by simply not renewing them.

As Glasgow leases confer private property rights, the land cannot be returned to iwi, under Treaty settlements, and that’s been declared in the report back to the House by the select committee. However, as many contributors to this bill have acknowledged, this Treaty settlement bill does not address the outstanding issues of the Glasgow leases, in so far as Te Aute endowment lands.

By way of historical context, can I just again draw the House’s attention to Te Aute College endowment lands that were gifted by the generosity of Ngāi Te Whatuiāpiti, approximately 7,000 acres, to establish Te Aute College in 1857. I do want to go on record, because I am a daughter of a Te Aute old boy. I have three brothers that went to Te Aute College. But I’ve also got to acknowledge Hukarere Girls’ College, that was opened 23 years later, in 1875. I mention Hukarere Girls’ College because Te Aute Trust Board is the legal entity of both of these renowned, iconic Māori boarding schools. Again, as the daughter of a Hukarere Girls’ College old girl—with grandmother, great-grandmother, and nieces that all went there—it’s important that I put that on the record. So when we talk about the Glasgow leases, in terms of Te Aute College, we must also remember the role that those Glasgow leases have in determining the survival of Hukarere Girls’ College going forward.

In terms of value, the value of Te Aute lands that we are talking about—the 6,000 acres, 23 blocks—on average, per annum they get $230,000 on their lands—$230,000 per annum—and it’s been valued at $1.4 million; $1.4 million. So that’s an example of what Te Aute College and Hukarere Girls’ College are missing out just in income in today’s dollars. It’s almost 24 percent of what the full value is.

Using Treasury’s own figures, at a 2 percent rate of inflation, using Treasury’s modelling, $70 million of value of these lands has been lost to Te Aute Trust Board—$70 million worth of value, since the royal commission was established that broke the land up into 23 blocks in 1916. I want the members of this House to realise we are not talking about short change here. Conservatively, it is $70 million of lost revenue to Te Aute College and Hukarere Girls’ College that we are addressing here. So I want to encourage the House, because both sides of the House have been acknowledging that Te Aute Glasgow leases are an outstanding issue that we in this House should put immediate attention to.

I want to talk about the Māori Reserved Land Amendment Act 1997. The question that I pose is why Te Aute lands were not included in the Māori Reserved Land Amendment Act 1997. The reason why I say that is there are three things that this Act allows you to do, in terms of Māori reserves. It allows leases to be renegotiated, it allows solatium payments or top-up payments, and, thirdly, it allows the lessor to get compensation for historic loss. For me, there is a legislative solution for the Glasgow leases, and that is called the Māori Reserved Land Amendment Act.

That’s my blurb on Te Aute Glasgow leases. I think it is a really important issue that this House does turn to address and turns its attention to. I want to acknowledge the Minister for saying that he is going to commission a further report into those leases. But I’ve just indicated that there’s a possible tool here.

In terms of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, there’s been contributors from both sides. One thing I do want to say is that it would have been very useful for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to have appeared and submitted in front of the select committee. Given the concerns that many of the submitters raised, it would have been very useful for them going forward. I hope that they take that opportunity going forward.

In terms of Wai 574, the Karanema Reserve Claim, there’s been enough kōrero around that. The only thing I would add—and I would support the former speaker that spoke before me, Harete Hipango—is that this is something that the trust could address. This is the issue when you have hapū that have no marae. So I want to acknowledge the trust’s commitment of $1 million per marae, but in this particular case, in the Karanema Wai 574, they have no marae.

Finally, in the time that I’ve got left, there’s been talk about Te Aute’s prowess in their rugby days. I’m sitting here with the member for Napier, Stuart Nash—

Hon Peeni Henare: Slightly overexaggerated.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Ha, ha! I just want to acknowledge the hard work of our negotiators in getting us here. I want to acknowledge all the submitters that came before the select committee. I thought the day in Heretaunga was a very illuminating day in terms of the support for this claim. The $5 million that’s going to an entity yet to be determined for the ongoing sustainability of Te Aute—I hope, in the trust’s decisions, that they also look at Hukarere. That college always seems to miss out, and my mother will be calling me if I sit down and I didn’t mention the opportunity for Hukarere Māori girls’ school to also bask in the returns as we pass this second reading. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Otirā, e ngā mema, i mua i te whakaaetanga o te mōtini, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou o Heretaunga Tamatea; nō reira tēnā koutou.

[Therefore, fellow members, before the motion is passed, it is only right that those of you from Heretaunga Tamatea should be formally acknowledged; therefore, greetings to you all.]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

This bill seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to retire in any of the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or New Zealand. Before I get into the detail of this bill, can I acknowledge the presence of the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, Henry Puna, and his Minister, Albert Nicholas, and other advisers and staff members from the Cook Islands. Can I also acknowledge you, Madam Assistant Speaker, as a Cook Islands member of this Parliament—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia orana.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and I also acknowledge Alfred Ngaro, from the Opposition, as a Cook Islands member from this Parliament, and my ministerial colleague Kris Faafoi, of Tokelauan descent, as a member of this Parliament as well.

This Government is committed to a Pacific reset. We have a renewed emphasis on strengthening our relationship with our Pacific neighbours. This renewed emphasis is, in a small but meaningful way, reflected in this bill. Yesterday, the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, the Rt Hon Henry Puna, described the connection between New Zealand and the Cook Islands as an enduring, evolving, and living partnership. Under this Government, we will continue to evolve and grow together with our Pacific neighbours, based on a partnership of equals.

I see this much-needed and long-time-coming piece of legislation as honouring this special partnership between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This Government wants to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised, and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported. We also want to ensure that New Zealanders who meet the relevant visa and immigration requirements can have other options for where they spend their retirement.

This bill allows the requirement that a person can meet their requirements of five years’ residence and presence after the age of 50 in New Zealand for superannuation, with residence and presence in either New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, or any combination of those countries and that territory.

The change is restricted to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau because this bill is about recognising New Zealand’s close constitutional relationships with these Pacific Islands, and reflects our push for stronger and more aspirational partnerships between New Zealand and these Pacific Islands. Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are part of the Realm of New Zealand, which means that they enjoy shared citizenship with New Zealand and unique legal arrangements. Both the Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling self-government and free association with New Zealand, so they can administer their own affairs. Tokelau is a non-selfgoverning territory of New Zealand.

Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation to one of 22 Pacific countries and territories, including the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This special portability arrangement is designed to recognise the contribution Pacific peoples make to New Zealand and the inability of Pacific countries and territories to fulfil the reciprocal obligations necessary to conclude social security agreements with New Zealand. There are currently nearly 400 people receiving their New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and over 300 of those people live in the Cook Islands.

Before 2015, a person would have to be resident and present in New Zealand on the date of application in order to be eligible under the special portability arrangement. However, an amendment introduced in 2015 means that people resident in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau can now apply for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension from the Islands, rather than needing to be resident and present in New Zealand at the time of their application. Applicants, though, were still required to be 65 years or over and to have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20 and five years since the age of 50, in fulfilment of the other requirements of superannuation and veterans pension.

The intent of this change was to remove a disincentive for people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to live. However, the change has had a smaller take-up than expected. It is now evident that the 2015 change, while removing some disincentives for skilled people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau during their working lives, did not achieve the desired effect of encouraging people to move back to and remain in those countries.

The overall principle of the five years over 50 residence requirement that comes with superannuation and the veterans pension entitlements continues to be preserved in this bill, and requirements remain about overall residency of at least 10 years in New Zealand after the age of 20. This means that somebody must have at least had a recent connection with the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, or New Zealand before they can get New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension, which could not be achieved by simply removing the five years over 50 residence requirement for people applying from the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.

The proposals in this bill have come about due to concerns raised by the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue about the current five years over age 50 residence requirement. They considered that the five over 50 residence requirement was deterring skilled people from returning and contributing to their countries and territory. They were also concerned that the five years over 50 residence requirement may induce some people to return to New Zealand in order to ensure that they will be able to claim New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension later on, and the concern was that that was the only reason for returning to New Zealand at that point.

This bill is about supporting the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Depopulation, and its related social and economic consequences, is a longstanding issue for these islands. The current five years over 50 residence requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans to remain in their employment and to participate in their community after having lived in New Zealand.

We all, in this House, know the importance of family, particularly in later life. This bill helps to maintain family and community ties in these Pacific Islands by enabling older people to stay with their family without losing access to superannuation or the veterans pension. There is also concern that people would leave important positions which contribute to the economy and society to return to New Zealand to gain the five years residence in New Zealand over the age of 50. Removing this disincentive would potentially help boost economic development and human resource capacity by allowing highly skilled people to continue contributing to their communities in these Pacific Islands after the age of 50, and be entitled to New Zealand’s superannuation and veterans pension by using residence in the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and New Zealand to qualify.

This change will not be restricted to New Zealand citizens of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau; other New Zealanders who qualify for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension will be able to make use of the provision, should they meet the relevant migration and visa criteria in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau and choose to reside there. I thought I should clarify this, because I have people in my office thinking that at the age of 50 they could just automatically move to the Cook Islands, and that’s not the case.

The economic implications of the bill for New Zealand are relatively low. The increase in New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension costs in the first complete fiscal year, in 2019-20, is estimated to be $3.5 million, rising to $4.3 million by 2022-23.

There are a range of indirect economic benefits and savings that may be derived by New Zealand from the proposal. The potential benefits include increased economic activity in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—as I mentioned earlier—leading to a reduction in remittance payments and, potentially, private transfers from New Zealand. Savings could also be accrued as a result of a lesser burden on some of the New Zealand Government - funded services, as has been highlighted by the Cook Islands and Niue Governments themselves. These benefits are difficult to quantify, however, and would depend on the response to the new arrangements.

Officials have tried to estimate how many people might benefit from the new arrangement. The proposal is estimated to result in an additional 174 people receiving New Zealand super and the veterans pension in the first complete fiscal year of operation, in 2019-20, rising to 204 people in 2022-23. While those are relatively small numbers, in the context of the very small populations of Niue and Tokelau, in particular, which each have populations of less than 1,500 people, the implications of the bill are significant for those countries and territories.

I want to acknowledge the vital role, in bringing this bill together, that our Pacific neighbours have played not only in New Zealand but, can I also say, the role that our Pacific neighbours play on the global stage. We have a unique relationship with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and that is something to cherish. With this bill, this Government shows our commitment to evolving and growing our partnership together as a response to the concerns and needs that have been raised with us. I want to thank the Cook Island Government for being present in the House today, and I look forward to progressing this bill further. Meitaki.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I, first of all, say and declare thank you for the speech from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, because the National Party will be supporting this bill. We see this as a bill that is of great importance and also signifies the relationship that we have.

Can I, first of all, also acknowledge the Hon Henry Puna, who’s here—the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands—and also too Her Excellency, Teremoana Yala. Thank you for being here. Kia orana korua no tei tere mai ki roto i te Paremata no Aotearoa. Madam Assistant Speaker Williams, can I also acknowledge you, as a fellow Kiwi of Cook Islands descent as well. Today’s a day that’s a proud day. We can see a piece of legislation that benefits not only us here in New Zealand but also our descendants back home and our families back home as well, in the three nations of the Realm—that’s the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

The special relationship has been signified. The honourable Prime Minister Puna is here today, when he was meant to be at a cocktail function up in Auckland. I know because I received the invitation, and when I saw him today he said that, actually, the other Ministers could attend to that, but it’s important that he be here today for this piece of legislation. So can I acknowledge your presence here.

It was also you, Prime Minister Puna, who came here back in 2015, along with the Premier of Niue, Toke Talagi. When I was chairing the Social Services Committee, we talked about the portability of the pension, back in 2015. I thank you, because you came, and I’m sure that would be one of the few occasions where the head of a nation—the Prime Minister himself, and, in this case the Premier and Prime Minister—came to a New Zealand select committee to present a submission. When you presented the submission you first of all acknowledged the fact that this had begun. I want to acknowledge—and you acknowledged—the Hon Murray McCully. The conversations have been long, but there came a point where it was time to actually act upon this and put this through.

So you acknowledged the portability of the pension and, in this case, the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, but you also petitioned the aspect of the 10- and five-year rule, which is now before us in this bill—and it’s to remove that five-year rule. Your petition to us, if I can remember quite clearly, was that in order to ensure that we address the issue of depopulation back in all the nations of the Realm, it was important that we have the ability for our people who’ve come here—who’ve worked here for many years and have been present in the country—to come back and to contribute both socially, economically, and culturally back to the nation as well. So I want to acknowledge and honour you for your passion and your advocacy at that time, because I believe that’s also led us to where we are here today as well.

I want to acknowledge the current Government of the day, who’ve continued to take that on, as the advocacy was, so let’s now remove the five years. So what it intentionally says is that those from those three nations of the Realm—those that are of Cook Island, Niue, and Tokelau descent—can return home. They can actually bring something back to those local economies, those local communities as well, and I think that’s significantly important to what we’re hearing in our communities.

If I think back, there were times when we’d think, “What is the contribution of Pacific peoples?”, and I want to acknowledge that we’ve now been able to highlight the significant contribution back in World War I. It was two or three years ago when we were acknowledging the centenary celebrations—New Zealand’s 100 years. And all the way into that we realised that, actually, we had a part to play: Pasifika people were represented. I want to acknowledge the 147 Niue soldiers that were represented back in World War I, and the almost 500 Cook Islands soldiers that were represented. There were also members from Samoa, from Tokelau, and also from Tonga as well. In all, they say, in World War I there would have been approximately 1,000 Pacific people that were represented—that fought for the country, and, yes, under British rule, but because they believed it was important to make a contribution.

I mentioned that because part of what we’re talking about today is honouring the contribution that Pasifika people have made to New Zealand. It’s only fair that this bill is not only dealing with those in regards to the superannuation but also those who’ve been veterans. That’s why I want to acknowledge the veterans’ contribution—those who’ve made that contribution many times.

In fact, I see my good colleague and friend here, the Hon Peeni Henare. It was only last year when we had the re-enactment of the first Rarotongan contingent who were here in 1917. It was actually in this Chamber where were had Papa Te Poave who came along. His father was part of the 45 that were there. I want to acknowledge the Hon Peeni Henare, because on behalf of his grandfather, who was there at that time as Minister, he actually had the mihi towards them. It was a powerful, it was an emotional, and it was a spiritual moment because, again, it recognised the contribution that our Pasifika people make.

So I’m proud here today to acknowledge the importance of this. Because what this bill does is it is acknowledging, in a way, the contribution not only from the past but even in the present, for those who’ve contributed 10 years or more can now return back into the Pacific nations, into those Realm countries, and contribute back as well.

The special issues that are here are that there are three different types of superannuation in New Zealand. There’s the reciprocal social security agreement, and there’s the special portability and the general portability. This particular piece of legislation comes under the special portability. That’s important, again. It recognises the relationship, but it means that, again, those who’ve been here and have contributed to society over 10 years, before turning 50, can now return back. What we’ve heard time and time again is that that’s made a difference into those nations—contributing into their villages, giving back to their families as well, and I think that’s going to be important.

Prime Minister Puna, you also, yesterday, in the old legislative chamber—in fact, just parallel to here—talked about the importance of graduation. I want to acknowledge that because, when we see our Pacific nations, the only way that we can graduate, that we can mature, that we can move on is when we have the opportunities to grow the economy, but also to bring back those who’ve been the diaspora—that is what we call them: Cook Islanders who’ve lived abroad, who’ve gained some experience and expertise, and Niueans and Tokelauans, who can come back then and make their contribution.

I want to thank you for that, because I think that truly is a statement of leadership in our Pacific nations—to say that even as small Pacific nations we can have a contribution, that we can move from a sense of dependency, and even though, as nations of the Realm you are self-governing and in free association, it’s truly a mark of leadership and maturity when as small Pacific nations we desire to actually graduate and move from a sense of dependency as well.

Inside of that, I know that one of the questions that I asked from the floor yesterday was about how we can grow that connectivity. Previously, we used to have an overseas seat. You, Prime Minister Puna, in true form and in humour, said, “Well, what we do is that we supplant Cook Islanders into the New Zealand Parliament.” I want to acknowledge the Assistant Speaker here as well. I think that what you, Prime Minister Puna, were also alluding to is that there are a number of Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans who have succeeded and have done well in our society. If I think about it, it was only just last week that we were there to welcome Adrian Orr, who is now the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and that is quite a significant role. Even though he is from Atiu descent—well, you can’t all be perfect; he’s not from Aitutaki, Mangaia, or Pukapuka; that’s OK—but what’s more important is that he’s a Cook Islander that’s able to be in position of influence. And there are many others.

I hope that what this bill will do is it will encourage more of our Pasifika people to say that with the experience that they have learnt, with the expertise that they can offer, they will return home.

I know that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and I and others were on the Pacific Mission, and when we were in Niue, why I was really encouraged was that there were a number of young people and families who said, “We’re coming back home. We’re coming back home because we believe that our countries are a better place to raise our children. It’s a way of connecting back to our families and to our villages.” So already we see that people are returning back. This piece of legalisation, I believe, is another way of creating a pathway that will not only encourage it but will also enable that ability as well. Because for a number of them, they often say that what holds them back from returning is the fact of their parents. Now they’ll have the ability to be able to support their parents as they return back.

The legislation will mean that they no longer need to be present or resident in Aotearoa, in New Zealand; they can actually continue to be living and working and contributing back in those nations of the Realm, and that becomes significantly important as well. So, Madam Assistant Speaker, can I say that it’s a proud day to be able to speak to this bill. I know that, for you and I, we are proud to be able to see that many, not only in the Cook Islands but in Niue and Tokelau, will see this bill as significant, and, more importantly, something that we join right across the House in supporting. We support this piece of legislation to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Now, before I call the honourable member on the next call, I just want to make clear that although the previous speaker, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, did make mention of the chair in his speech, I know that he was referring to the presence in the gallery of the Hon Henry Puna, the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, and the delegation that’s there. So I was lenient towards you, but I would encourage members in their contributions to ensure that they do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ka noho ahau ki roto i taku Reo Māori mō te wāhanga tuatahi o taku kōrero. Ko te kī atu ahau ki a koutou e Tākitimu waka, tōia mai rā ki runga i ngā wai kapakapa o Aotearoa e hora ake nei. Tōia mai rā e Aotea waka ki runga i Te Whare Pāremata e tū nei. Tōia mai rā ko Ārai-te-Uru ki runga i tō tatou Whare e tū nei. E mihi atu ana ki a koutou—haere mai, haere mai, tēnā rā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I shall stay in my Māori language for the first part of my speech. Let me say to you who hail from the great canoe of Tākitimu, haul (your canoe) across the rippling waters of New Zealand which surround us. To you from the great canoe of Aotea, haul (your canoe) to Parliament. To you from the great canoe of Ārai-te-Uru, haul (your canoe) to this House which belongs to us all. Warm greetings to you all. Welcome, welcome, welcome. I acknowledge you all.]

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I—after my mihi of course—just talk about some of those connections, as was referred to by the Hon Alfred Ngaro in his contribution to this particular bill, because I believe those are really important—not just the matters of this bill but in terms of our enduring and evolving relationship with our relatives from the Pacific Islands. I say “relatives” because according to my whakapapa we come from the same canoe, and I think that’s important because the honourable member, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, talked about the brotherhood that’s stood side by side in World War I. We know too that they stood side by side as part of D Company of the 28th Māori Battalion in World War II. So it’s only right we acknowledge our history.

I believe that it is that particular history that has led to this bill, which has taken some time, but we are here today. I also take the point made by members who have contributed to this bill about the possibilities and the prospects for the future, and that’s exciting, and I want to touch on all three of those.

We know now for many years in Aotearoa New Zealand that the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau communities have been meaningful contributors to our country—on the rugby field, on the battlefield, in business, in Parliament, and right across every corner of our country. It’s important that we acknowledge that contribution because this goes, in part, some way to making sure that we acknowledge that by also allowing them to fulfil the great words left to us by our forefathers which say te pai o te nohoanga a te tuakana me te teina ki raro i te whakaaro kotahi [it is truly wonderful when the older brother and the younger brother are of one mind].

I think that’s important, because as tuākana and tēina we know the value of that cultural premise. We know that when we provide opportunities, as is provided in this particular bill, for whānau of Cook Island descent, of Niuean descent, and of Tokelauan descent to return home, it speaks to many of those aspects that have already been mentioned: economic prosperity, social prosperity; and I want to also add to that, cultural prosperity.

It is not by coincidence—in fact, I’d say it’s good planning of the House—that just prior to this bill was a Treaty settlement bill. That’s important because it’s these kinds of bills that provide opportunity for whānau and tuākana to go home, to make sure that they have the means to be able to contribute meaningfully to their communities, to their country. That is really important. Why? Because we know the language loss is a terrible thing; cultural loss is a terrible thing. As is the tradition in the Polynesian cultures, the way that we are able to actually pass on our knowledge and our teachings and genealogy to our young people is through our elders.

This particular bill, of course, we know, allows for the residency to be more portable. It allows for those of Cook Island, Niuean, and Tokelauan descent to actually be able to return home, and I think that’s really important. It can’t be missed in this debate. I agree economic prosperity is a good thing and social prosperity is a good thing, but I know as a Māori and having witnessed people leave our rural communities to go to the urban centres who haven’t returned—I’d argue in this House that, actually, many of the symptoms that are plaguing our society—in particular, my people, Māori people, Ngāpuhi people in Auckland—today is simply because of disconnection to culture and disconnection to home. A bill like this allows for those people from the Islands—from Tokelau, Niue, and Cook Islands—to head home, and that’s really important to me.

It provides flexibility. We know that now—and the honourable member Alfred Ngaro mentioned it—the world is becoming more and more connected. We are able to travel more and more. It’s easy to pop home and to come back to Aotearoa New Zealand and actually to call both places home, and that’s a good thing. I think that’s an excellent thing. And it should never ever be one is sacrificed for the other. We know that, in fact, it’s cheaper to fly to the Cook Islands than it is to fly to Wellington at some points in time, but I will leave Air New Zealand to the side.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I’m coming with you.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! Other members have raised that—but, look, I think that’s important, because of connectivity, and as the world gets smaller, it’s important that we have bills like this that will allow that flexibility, to allow members from communities of Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue, obviously, to be able to call both places home, to make sure that not just them as individuals but their families can do that too. That’s a multi-generational thing, and these are the added benefits that a bill like this actually provides.

Improvements to the pension portability—that’s a no-brainer. I say “improvements” because this particular bill and the purposes of this bill have come through iterations and come to a certain point today. It hasn’t always been as good as, I believe, this particular bill is. In fact, in the past, as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has already mentioned in her contribution, under the last regime, it was this. [Gestures with hand] We acknowledge that the uptake of this particular provision wasn’t very high, so we wanted to be able to make sure that in this new and exciting Government, in acknowledging our Polynesian connections, we can actually make this provision more available to those people of Niue, Tokelau, and Cook Island descent. So that’s an important thing.

My colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni obviously spoke to much of the technical aspects of this particular bill: the number of years required before one is eligible, the ability for it to be portable to and fro—if you like—from the two homes of Aotearoa and the Pacific Islands. Those are all good things. I think that the economic prosperity that will come from actually having a more engaged community between Aotearoa and the Islands is a good thing. As mentioned by the previous speakers, the skill set that people attain while coming to New Zealand—and other places in the world, but in particular here in New Zealand—they’re able to take that back to their particular homes and make sure that their communities are prosperous is a good thing, and it’s a no-brainer. In fact, I’ve said previously, this relationship is an evolving one and I’d like to think that, in the future, the shared prosperity between those Pacific Islands mentioned in this particular bill and Aotearoa New Zealand can be a longer and more meaningful discussion, but we’ll leave that for another time.

At this particular point in time, we want to once again, on this side of the House, support this bill, say it’s a good bill—it’s a great bill, in fact; promoted by my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. It is, I believe, long overdue and will contribute to a wider and more robust conversation about the prosperity of the wider Pacific into the future.

So, finally, just once again, a big thankyou to all of the people that have had a contribution to this particular bill. We know that on a recent tour of the Pacific, people outside of this House have made their thoughts known on this particular bill, and so we want to thank one and all—of course, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for the promotion of this bill—and to say to this House that we’re proud to pass a bill like this. In true Māori and Polynesian tradition, I want to finish by saying tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with pleasure I rise to talk to this bill, a bill that I believe is long overdue. It was June last year when the then Prime Minister, the Hon Bill English, paid a visit to the Pacific, building on a lot of dialogue that has happened over many years, as other speakers have indicated, as to the usefulness of changing the settings and changing the rules. So National supports this bill very much.

I acknowledge the Hon Henry Puna and others in the gallery whom I’ve spoken to about this situation many times. In the last term of Government, when I was the Minister responsible for WW100 commemorations, I learnt the stories that Alfred Ngaro, my colleague, alluded to just before about the courage and the bravery of the Pacific Islanders who fought and gave their lives for the Commonwealth. I don’t think they were treated particularly fairly at those times, but nonetheless they showed great willingness to serve as part of New Zealand’s, and the wider Commonwealth’s, battles that were going on.

I think that when we tried to change the settings in 2015—and I was the Minister for Seniors at that time—it didn’t work as well as we had hoped it would. I think we expected it to cost about $5 million; it cost about $1 million, which showed the uptake was not particularly effective, but, really, what was required—and the message has been coming through loud and clear—was that we needed to make it as easy as possible and that the five years after 50 rule needed to go. There was a letter in April of 2017, last year. The Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that, based on advice he had received from his officials and the reports he had had during his own visits to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, the current settings were just not working as well as they had intended to be. So, clearly, more was done, and I commend the Government and the Minister for carrying through this legislation. It has been an important thing to do, and I acknowledge that.

I also acknowledge that we needed to do this, and we also needed to be fair. So, as others have indicated, there are special categories—one of them is special portability. So if an individual moves to one of the 22 nominated Pacific nations, they can have a proportion of their New Zealand superannuation with them, but there is a very special relationship with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau because those people are New Zealand citizens, and this bill, I think, reflects a wider constitutional responsibility that New Zealand has for its citizens living in the Pacific. For them to be able to take their skills, take the wisdom that they have learnt in their time away from their homelands back to those communities to fuel that economic powerhouse but also, as the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, indicated, the cultural exchange—we are richer as nations from having shared your people and we are becoming more aware of the issues through the Pacific through having people living here from the three islands. We need to acknowledge that they need to return home at some point, and I think it needs to happen at a time when people are able to make a financial contribution through their New Zealand superannuation.

So, on many levels, I think that this is an excellent thing to support. I don’t intend to take too much more time on this, beyond acknowledging the people in this House who, over many years, have listened to the people of the Pacific, have heard what has been said, and have come up with a solution that this entire House supports so that it can be to the betterment of the three Pacific island nations. So, without hesitation and with pride, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): This is a proud day for New Zealand First and for every single New Zealander out there who voted for New Zealand First in the 2017 election. I have to say, I accept the sincerity of the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s speech, but I’m going to go back a little bit in history, because I think, this being the first reading, it is appropriate that we do that. I will acknowledge, with thanks and gratitude, National’s new-found position, but I have to say to Alfred Ngaro: if you truly want to represent Pacific Island people by passing legislation such as this, you’re in the wrong party to do that. You should really be over on the side of the House, maybe with—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could I just encourage you not to bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK: Yes, thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. He is in the wrong party, and he could better represent them from over here. Why do I say that? I think we need to, at this point in time, go back and look at the history, and I say the political history, of this nation. On the question of superannuation, generally speaking, there is only one person, one party, that can claim the title of being the heavyweight champion of superannuitants in this region, and that is the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First. On the question of super, there’s only one person, one party, that has consistently fought for the rights of, the dignity of, and the well-being of superannuitants of this nation, and the integrity of the superannuation policies and laws that this nation has either passed or failed to pass.

I want to say that if we go back—and we need to, because this is a very significant day. This is a very important day in the history of this nation when it comes to fairness, equity, dealing with prejudice, and dealing with injustice. If we look back over history and the way in which superannuitants have been dealt with, we recall very vividly the attacks on the Labour - New Zealand First Government when we introduced the SuperGold card. We look back on the cuts that were made to that and the direct impact on superannuitants during the time that National was in Government—those nine long years, when they attacked the rights and privileges accorded to superannuitants through the Labour - New Zealand First SuperGold card.

We look back at the surcharge, the “no ifs, no buts, no maybes” promises that it would be removed when they came to power, by National, and subsequently its non-removal and the fact that it took till 1996 in a coalition negotiation between New Zealand First and National to finally get rid of the surcharge.

We think back to the times when people dipped their hands into the Superannuation Fund to fund other projects and Government spending. It tended to be National. If we look back to the implementation of the Cullen fund, the vision that was displayed there and the courage, it was a Labour - New Zealand First Government. And then we come a little bit more into the more recent past, looking at who then cut the contributions and the impact that has had on sustainability, and who then talked about reducing payments—it all comes back to the National Party again.

If we then look at—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could I just ask the member, please come back to the specifics of this. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK: I think what is important about this bill is it sets in place a promise that was made—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Superannuation rose significantly under the previous Government.

Hon RON MARK: —a promise that was made, Mr Macindoe, on the back of a Supplementary Order Paper on this very matter in a speech given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 29 April 2015 when the then National Government sought to deal with this problem but cut short. Now, Mr Peters put down a Supplementary Order Paper that is actually reflective of what we’re doing here right now.

I’m going to requote some of the things he said, because these things have just been repeated in the House, ironically by the National Party members who now support the bill. He said at that time that this legislation that this coalition Government is now addressing and correcting was “extraordinarily biased and prejudicial towards the Realm countries in the Pacific”. He said then that the “Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, has continually emphasised the special and historic relationship of the Realm countries, and the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill is [only] doing … half [of the] … job.” that it should. He appealed to the Minister “to finish what he started and amend the agreement to exempt the Realm countries from section 8(c)”, and that’s what Mr Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper was all about. But did they listen? No.

He talked about “A concession to those who retire to these three islands is a gesture of goodwill, and their special relationship to New Zealand”—something that he’s just repeated on the tour with the Prime Minister in those speeches around Pacific reset and in those discussions that he’s had in the Cook Islands. So here we are, backing up those words with our deeds, and Minister Sepuloni is introducing this bill for its first reading, which is actually a case made of a promise made and a promise kept. We’re very proud of that.

He talked then about a simple change in the rule which meant that they did not have to return if they are a Cook Islander, a Niuean, or a Tokelau Islander, or, for that matter, if the person were a New Zealander working in the Islands. He talked about removing the need for them to return to live in New Zealand for five years and how illogical it was to deny a similar concession to a special group of retirees in the Cook Islands—re-emphasising the very point that we are now dealing with.

He talked about the social and economic impact on those islands, something that the Hon Alfred Ngaro has now repeated as being the reason that the National Party will support this, and we applaud the Hon Alfred Ngaro for acknowledging that now, but we do have to say that he could have done it in 2015. Why is it that it has taken another three years and an election to get members on that side of the House to address an issue that was simply prejudicial, simply undermined the social and economic viability of these Island nations, simply stripped out skilled people, forcing them to return back to New Zealand, leaving their whānau, to meet their obligations so that they could get that portability.

We would simply plead that on the day, and it will happen, that there is another National-led Government, remember this moment. Remember this moment when they, the National Party, had to accept and admit that they were wrong. Front up. Don’t just give a nice speech here today. Say sorry. Say sorry, because Mr Peters was very clear—very clear—that at the same time that these impositions were being placed on Pacific Islanders—Niue, Tokelau, Cook Islands—that Government was letting 87,000 people retire into New Zealand and collect superannuation after living here only 10 years—87,000.

When you compare that to the 400 people that we’re talking about now, what can one say about that? One can only say that that seemed pretty prejudicial, pretty uncaring, and pretty unfair. This was never about an election lolly scramble aimed at garnering votes. This was about recognising the very things that every member has spoken about this far: the history, the connectivity, the fact that these nations are us and we are them, and about honesty, fairness, equity, and removing a policy that was simply prejudicial and actually undermined the economic viability. It stripped out skill sets that were viable for mentoring, tutoring, and helping those that are still in those islands live and grow. We just hope—I should say on behalf of New Zealand First—that National will in the remaining speeches find it within itself to be a little humble and to apologise.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Madam Assistant Speaker, may I start by saying what an honour and a delight it is to have Prime Minister Puna, the high commissioner, and other representatives of the Cook Islands Government with us today. It is a great privilege to have you here and we are thrilled that you are here to witness such a historic moment in our Parliament. At the risk of being admonished, I shall look in this direction and may I also say how appropriate it is that you, Madam Assistant Speaker, are presiding over this debate and also to have had as the first speaker from the Opposition the Hon Alfred Ngaro to lead off, as the very first person of Cook Islands descent to be an MP in this Parliament. We are very proud of that.

May I say to the Prime Minister and his delegation that we are very proud of both of these MPs who are very dedicated and effective members of our Parliament and who also, I believe, are inspiring to migrant communities in New Zealand from many different countries. I acknowledge the fact that ours is now a very diverse Parliament. We are much stronger for that. We are proud of that and, as I say, it is a great inspiration in my own community and right around the country. I acknowledge all of our MPs in this Parliament who were not born in New Zealand but who have made this their home and I thank you for the way in which you enrich our country.

The purpose and the implications of this bill have been well traversed by most of the previous speakers and, in particular, I acknowledge the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who spelt it out in great detail, as did the Hon Alfred Ngaro and most others. Notwithstanding the very churlish and ill-informed contribution that we have just had to listen to, most of the speakers have acknowledged what a proud and historic day this is, and, in particular, have acknowledged that it was the Rt Hon Bill English who made the commitment while he was Prime Minister last year that has led to us coming to this point. I thank the new Government for continuing with the measure, and I would like to feel that the bipartisan spirit that had prevailed until the last speaker made his contribution might be resumed, because this is a day for us to be magnanimous, to be proud of what is happening, to acknowledge the fact that it is a measure whose time has come and it is, I believe, widely supported right around the country.

I certainly believe that it is widely supported in my own community in the fine city of Hamilton, New Zealand’s fourth-largest city, where we have a vibrant Cook Islands community and also smaller communities from Niue and Tokelau. I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate my association with all of those communities and again acknowledge how much they can contribute and how much they enrich our community. I appreciate their values. I appreciate their dedication, particularly their love of family, their valuing and appreciation of education, and the many skills that they bring into our workforce.

I also acknowledge however the great lure of home. In fact, having had the delight—probably the greatest family holiday that we’ve ever had in my family was about four years ago, spending a week in Rarotonga—

Matt Doocey: Oh, where are the pictures?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The pictures are on the desk in my office, Mr Doocey, and I’d be delighted for you to come and see them. In fact, I have one photo in a frame on my desk just because it’s such a wonderful memory of a very happy family time in such a beautiful and welcoming country. I have to say that our man from Aitutaki here has yet to extend the invitation to me to take me off to his island, and I look forward to that. I’m determined to return one day and to enjoy his hospitality.

But because time is short, I’m going to leave it at that point but will just say again how proud I am that we are making this big step today—the first step in an important piece of legislation that will make a huge difference, a huge difference, in the lives of many, many people who are currently living in our country who also have New Zealand citizenship but the ability to return to their homes. This is a sensible, pragmatic, and, I believe, compassionate measure. I also am proud to support it. Kia manuia.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am very proud to stand and support the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill on behalf of the Green Party. I want to congratulate Minister Sepuloni for bringing this bill to the House—a really important way that we can show better support, better connection, and better responsibility for our Pacific cousins, our tuākana, as tangata whenua will often refer to our Pacific Island relations and whanaunga.

I did want to start also, as many have done, because the tangata whenua connection with our Pacific Island whanaunga is a particular one and is a unique one, and so I too, from the tangata whenua perspective, would like to acknowledge the Cook Island Prime Minister, the Hon Henry Puna, the high commissioner, representatives, and staff from the Cook Island country in relation to the proud migration and waka journey travels and stories and settlements that Pacific people and tangata whenua to Aotearoa share collectively in terms of our whole collective migration and visiting and exchanging and learning throughout the different Pacific countries as we came down through the Pacific, and also culminating in our settlement here as tangata whenua in Aotearoa.

We have a unique historical whanaungatanga, a unique historical relationship to our tuākana, to our Pacific cousins. It is not just historical. We, of course, also share the similar colonial and imperial impacts on our homelands and what that has done for our people, our language, our land, our culture, and our relationships to each other, as well. I want to acknowledge, for example, the commonalities in the language revival work that both tangata whenua are consistently working on and reviving, and also the language revival work that is happening here in Aotearoa for our Pacific communities. Of course, I acknowledge that the Cook Island, Niue, and Tokelau countries are our citizen brothers and sisters, our citizen siblings, and it’s really wonderful to have our Cook Island, Niue, and Tokelau MPs in this House with us, as well. We’re all very proud of that in this House.

So this bill is going to make it easier for people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to be eligible for our New Zealand superannuation and/or our veterans pensions—our pension payments. As Minister Sepuloni has already stated, the Governments of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau were concerned—and I picked this up keenly—about the way that the current eligibility criteria for New Zealand pensions was preventing or deterring people from returning home and contributing to their countries at an earlier age. At this point, I just want to pick up on some of the media reports—which I am grateful for—which shared some of the stories where, for example, many people trying to meet the current standards moved to New Zealand from those three nations to meet those criteria for the New Zealand superannuation payments by spending at least 10 consecutive years in New Zealand after the age of 20, and then they would move back to the Cook Islands, for example, where perhaps anxiety had set in in their fifties and they realised that they wanted to return to their ancestral lands. But they then had to move back to New Zealand again to be able to meet those stringent requirements of the five years after 50 rule—spending at least five years here after the age of 50.

So having to move back and forth, or having to stay put and not go home at all, to be able to meet that five years after 50 rule—we’re getting rid of that. Or, actually, we’re not getting rid of it; we are making sure that the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are included in the net for the residency eligibility, and this makes me happy.

This makes me happy because, as tangata whenua—and my tungāne and colleague, the Hon Peeni Henare picked up on it today as well, where he talked about the similar sorts of stories we share of the exodus of tangata whenua from our tupuna lands, our ancestor lands, to the cities and what that has meant today. Something I’ve taken for granted is so many of our young people—well, not just young people. Many of our people—more and more of our people—don’t even know what marae they are from, what iwi they’re from, or what hapū they’re from. By the way, that doesn’t mean anything to us. Even if you don’t know your marae, you still belong to it, and we’ll still claim you, even if you don’t know you’re from it. So it’s not just the economic and social disconnection; it’s a spiritual and cultural disconnection that, hopefully, this bill is going to go some way to try to assist in that reconnection work. So I am pretty stoked to be able to stand up and support the bill from that common experience of what it means.

Yes, we’re very lucky to be able to call several places our home. Even here in Aotearoa—I live, by the way, in Manurewa, in Manukau. Manukau City is, I think, the largest Pacific city in the Pacific. I live there and that is my home, and has been for two decades, but my ancestor homes are also in the Far North and on the East Coast. They are all equally my home, but it is also important to me that I am able to feel connected to my ancestral homes, as well. So I’m glad that I’m able to stand here and support this bill, because, often, we’re torn between those many homes and torn between choosing where we want to be and where we are able to be.

So, just to go into a little bit of the detail of this bill, for the Green Party representation, currently, to be eligible for New Zealand pension payments, one has to have been present in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, and then the five years, which must be from the age of 50—that’s that five years after 50 rule that I was referring to previously—and—

Matt Doocey: Life begins at 50.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Sorry, sorry, Mr Doocey? Five years after 50? I think that’s a simple way for me to be able to understand what’s going on here.

The reason why this is for Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau is because New Zealand has constitutional responsibility for our citizen siblings and cousins in those countries, and we’re wanting to reflect that relationship. So I did want to pick up—oh, I’ve sort of talked about it a little bit more, but the specific concern that drove those countries’ Governments to advocate and lead the call for this amendment was also around the problems of depopulation. You know, we’re still facing that here, so we know a bit about that and the social, economic, and cultural consequences, and the instability, also, of not being able to settle for as long as you would like in one place and having to go back and forth, or not being able to return when you would like to because of these stringent rules.

I’ve got a little bit of time, and I did just want to acknowledge that in 2015, some attempt was made to improve the portability of pension payments for people of Cook Island, Niue, and Tokelau descent, but, basically, that didn’t quite work, and it didn’t have the take-up that we would have hoped for. I do acknowledge Mr Ron Mark took us through the politics of that—I acknowledge that—and so here we are today, allowing for that change, which was, apparently, the change that New Zealand First proudly pushed for. Here we are today, allowing for that five years after 50 rule, to include the residents of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to contribute to the residency and eligibility.

So I just wanted to finish by again acknowledging the calls and the leadership from the Governments of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, who saw fit to work with us and who will continue to work with us, and who saw fit to call for this. I think we should keep reviewing and keep checking—and I know our Minister will—to see what sorts of improvements or what sorts of teething problems there are. I know that we will keep checking on that so that it’s set up to do what it’s supposed to do. I am just very proud here, as tangata whenua and an MP, to support this bill. Meitaki.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): What a great bill, and what a great bill to end this week. It’s been a tough week for the Government. It’s great to see we can come together and finish on a high note. I do want to take the time to apologise to that last speaker, Marama Davidson, because I did interject and it was the wrong thing to do. It wasn’t rude or flippant. I said, “Life begins after 50.”, and my point was, now those people whose lives are beginning after 50 will have a choice of what country they can stay in, and I welcome that.

I just want to acknowledge the members that have gone before me who have talked about the history of this bill, the symbolism. I don’t want to traverse that, but I do want to raise four points—it is a debate—and the first is: I did hear some chatter that people think we’re taking away that five years after 50 residency rule, which we’re not. All we’re changing is what country you do that in, either the Realm country or New Zealand. Because I think it is important—that five years after 50 rule.

Also, I think this bill actually is an acknowledgment for advocacy, because if I look at the amendments the past National Government made in 2015, allowing people from the Realm countries to apply—but it didn’t go that extra step, allowing people in the Realm countries to stay there after 50. There’s a risk now because I’m going to mention names—I won’t remember them all. But if I think back to members like Poto Williams and Carmel Sepuloni, who were very fierce in those debates, and I think this bill demonstrates how they’ve continued with that advocacy, and that’s how this bill has ended up here today.

I would like to give a heads-up to the select committee that is going to receive this bill. I’ve already had a lady in my Kaiapoi office who came in. She went to Australia at age 49, never thought about the implications, and now she’s back at 65 and obviously hasn’t triggered that five years after 50. So it is going to be one of those things where scope will be challenged in the select committee process, and good luck to the select committee for that.

My final point, I think, is that this bill is a direction of travel, and I think some in this House have already alluded to that. New Zealand is becoming a very diverse place and I think that should be applauded and celebrated. It’s fantastic. And, equally, nation States; people are choosing to live in multiple places over the course of their life, and it is something that we are going to have to think, in the Westphalian nation system of our nation States—retain their sovereignty but allow that flexibility, as people live in different countries along their life course. So I’d like to commend this very good bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Paul Eagle, five minutes.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Kia orana, fakalofa lahi atu, and malo ni. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on this bill. Can I acknowledge, as others have already, our dignitaries in the House this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge all of those who have put work into making this bill what it is today. There are many who have given a contribution—not only our Pacific brothers and sisters on both sides of the House but many of us who have the Pacific feeling and willingness to ensure that our Pacific nations, particularly those who are New Zealand citizens, are acknowledged as such and given the same rights and fortune that those living on the New Zealand mainland have.

There was some debate around who’s done what and where and how, but, look, I think the former Prime Minister went part way to bring a solution here. This Government has gone the full way, and, through the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, will deliver the result that the people of the Pacific have been long waiting for.

I want to just focus on a few themes. I want to say that this is long overdue and that’s been said before too. Also, acknowledging the special portability and pay extra special attention to, and mention of those New Zealand citizens in the Pacific—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

Can I thank the Governments, first and foremost, of those countries, who have been long at pain to bring their concerns to realisation. They will be happy with how this will proceed. I’m lucky because I have an electorate where the underpinnings of the Rongotai electorate are very much Pacific, and one only needs to look in Newtown there. It became the mini Pacific of Wellington, the capital city. My father was a Methodist minister in Newtown and many of his colleagues were proud to talk about the history, particularly—if I start with the Cook Islands, the Reverend Tariu Teaia, who was the first Cook Islands minister ordained in, I think, the early 1950s, into the Pacific Islanders Presbyterian Church there in Newtown. And that also had a Niuean congregation by the time it hit the 1970s, with the late Lagi Sipeli, and later they moved from there to St James and to St Giles now in Kilbirnie.

My point is that those churches, as symbols of the Pacific, remain; the communities have moved on. The mamas and the papas are still there. Some of the whānau are still there. Unfortunately, house prices are a little high these days, but, generally, they continue to work locally and their spirit, their heart, very much remains in the electorate.

I was fortunate enough, I had to answer to Mum and Dad occasionally, and they’d tell me “You better get to church.”, so I am privileged to talk to the congregation still. And it is very much the talk of the church aisles, and I hope that when it gets to the select committee process, they bring the colour of the Pacific to that select committee and let them know forthright what and why they think this is a wonderful idea.

They spoke of the anxiety. They spoke of tension and stress, children versus parents, and parents versus the mamas and the papas. But what it will do, and it’s why I’m commending this bill to the House, is it will finally deliver that cultural respect, that dignity, and also allow whānau to focus on that social and economic impact, whatever country they’re in, and at whatever age, aligning to the notions in the bill and bring happy whānau, once and for all.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and greetings also to our guests. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill. The first reading of a bill is the opportunity to review the frameworks of the bill, that will then carry it through to select committee and onwards—as I gently break down the mechanics of the bill, certainly to help me better understand it. The application of the bill is clearly applicable to peoples of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The instrument is pensions and veterans benefits. The legislation currently as placed is twofold: firstly, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, and, secondly, the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. I’ll come back to the portability amendment Act shortly.

In 2015, the amendment Act that I was talking about allows people from these islands to apply for their benefits from the Islands, rather than physically—a proviso to the other provisions being that they’re 65 years or older and that they meet the other residency requirements that have been thoroughly described in this House today, as the 10 years in New Zealand since age 20 and the five years since age 50. The change that this bill brings into account is the five years in residence since age 50 can now be as a resident of the Cooks, Niue, or Tokelau.

I wanted to conclude this short call—I was looking back over the third reading of the 2015 Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill. The Minister responsible at the time was Anne Tolley. I thought some of her concluding comments at that time carry through the aspirations today that we had then with that bill. I’d like to read some of them. This is in the voice of Anne Tolley: “As I mentioned earlier, this bill is also about ensuring the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for those islands. The current ‘resident and present in New Zealand’ requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans who are established in New Zealand to return home before the age of 65 … People returning at age 65 would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce 10 years in advance of the age of qualification for New Zealand superannuation. As pension payments are paid in gross, it is expected that more income and value-added tax will be paid by returning migrants to contribute to the local economy.”

The final sentences were: “I want to reiterate that this Government wants to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported.” I think those aspirations from the sponsor of the 2015 bill carry through to this bill. It’s with pleasure that this side of the House supports it all the way through to select committee and onwards.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia orana tatou katoatoa, malo e lelei, faakalofa lahi atu, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. But may I, first of all, acknowledge the presence of the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, the right honourable Henry Puna, and all of your officials here in this House. Today is indeed a historic day. Not only do we have the Prime Minister here, but it is not often that we have a House and a Parliament here in Aotearoa where we’re actually in agreement, and I’m glad that we’re actually in agreement on this particular bill.

I’d also like to acknowledge you, Madam Assistant Speaker, because I know this is a bill that is very dear to your heart. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Carmel Sepuloni as well, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who spoke before me, because I know this is also a bill that you and your party are in agreement with today.

This bill is about fairness. It is about fairness for New Zealand citizens, especially our citizens from the Realm countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

We know that for many people, especially when they’re middle-aged, similar to myself, there comes a time when—and I know this from a lot of our constituents in South Auckland. More than 50 percent of the people that live in my constituency in South Auckland are from the Pacific, and thousands are from the Cook Islands. I’m told by many of them that around about their late 50s and early 60s, many of them would prefer to go home—go back home to their country of origin. Some of them were born and raised in the Cook Islands or in Niue or in Tokelau, but many of them were born and raised here in Aotearoa New Zealand. But when they turn 50 or reach their early 60s, many of them, after having worked in Aotearoa New Zealand and paying taxes for many, many years, want to go back home, contribute their skills, and actually give assistance to their community back in the Islands. That is one of the reasons why I’m so glad that we have this particular legislation here today.

But, before I go on, I also must acknowledge and commend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the New Zealand First Party, because they have championed fairness for superannuitants—including the proposed changes in this legislation—for many, many years. I also must say that our coalition Government, led by Labour, with New Zealand First and the Greens, is very committed. We are committed to a reset of our relationship with the Pacific. We know that the right honourable Prime Minister has just been to the Pacific with a lot of our MPs here, and it is because we’re looking at resetting our relations with our Pacific neighbours.

I’d also like to acknowledge the economic and social achievements of our Pacific nations. We know that there are so many things that not only our Pacific people in Aotearoa contribute to while they’re here but our Pacific people, when they’re at home, also contribute. When we look at trade, we know that the trade between Aotearoa and the Pacific is one of those instances where we actually trade positively. From that alone, we know that we are really grateful to our Pacific brothers and sisters.

One of the main reasons why we are in support of this bill is because it will allow our residents, our citizens—and can I just go back to the fact that the citizens of the Realm countries are citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand. So the reason why we are in support of this legislation is because it is the fair thing to do, to treat our citizens here and to treat our citizens that are in the Realm countries in a fair way. It will allow folks in the Realm countries to take the pension and to be portable with their pensions. Right now, New Zealand superannuation allows people to go to 22 Pacific countries, and my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has already covered this quite well. But what this legislation allows is it allows people to live here in Aotearoa and to go to the Cooks or to go to Niue or to go to Tokelau for that five years after they turn 50, and that can only be a good thing. That is the fair thing that we should continue to allow.

New Zealand residents, of course, and New Zealand citizens can also enjoy those potential benefits, because they too, when they turn 50, can also live here or, if they choose, they can go and live in the Cook Islands or in Niue or in Tokelau. I know that there are some people that would also be willing to do that as well. I commend this bill to the House. Meitaki maata.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s my great honour to stand and support the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in its first reading.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the dignitaries present in the gallery, and it shows the importance of this bill that we have got this high level of dignitaries to support this bill in this House. I would like to acknowledge you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for your representation of the Pacific people. I would also like to acknowledge Carmel Sepuloni for bringing this bill. This bill is a continuation of what the Rt Hon Bill English initiated during his visit to the Pacific last year, and I congratulate the Minister for continuing to address this issue, which is very important. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa, who spoke before me, and your contribution. As you mentioned, South Auckland has got the biggest Pacific population—largest Pacific population—in the whole of the Pacific.

We are one family of Pacific nations and we have to look after each other, and this bill exactly does that. We want to give the option for people where they choose to live, whether they want to live in New Zealand or they want to go back to their home country and spend the rest of their time with their families over there at large.

This is a great bill, and I don’t have any hesitation in supporting this. Looking at the time, I want this first reading to conclude so that it can be referred to the select committee and reported back as soon as possible and become law, where people can take the benefits. With these words, I conclude my speech over here.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Kia orana. Faakalofa lahi atu. Malo ni. Kia ora koutou katoa. I just want to begin my call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill by acknowledging our very esteemed guests who are in the gallery today: the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, the high commissioner, and the representatives of the Cook Islands Government. I also want to thank Ministers on both sides of the House who have been involved in the progress of this bill from its inception right through to its first reading today.

I want to go a little bit into, of course, the purpose of this bill—what it does—but also some of the constitutional responsibilities that New Zealand has with our Realm nations. I will go into this, potentially, in a little bit more depth than some of the previous speakers have done, simply because I’ve actually been asked by a few people what the “Realm nations” means—sometimes by newer migrants to New Zealand as well, but there seems to be a little bit of confusion, so I thought I’d take this opportunity to delve into that a little bit more. Also, in terms of why this bill is so important, I also want to touch upon the importance of this bill a little bit as someone who migrated to New Zealand, even if it might not have been from the Pacific nations.

Also, I speak as the Labour member based in the Maungakiekie electorate, which, of course, is possibly the next electorate after South Auckland that has the largest population of Pacific people; we have close to 14,000.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Hmm, I don’t know.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Maybe? The member for Kelston and the Minister’s looking at me, so potentially not. But anyway, my point is that we have a large population of Pacific peoples—close to 14,000—and I know that close to 4,000 are from the Realm nations, so this is a bill that is significant to them as well.

A little bit about what this bill does: it’s basically about greater pension flexibility for people who want to retire in any one of these nations—the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. I thought, also, I’d go into a little bit about the eligibility for super. Of course, you’ve got to be a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident, 65 years or older, and there’s a residence qualification criterion as well, which basically means that people need to have resided in New Zealand for 10 years after the age of 20, and for five years after the age of 50. It’s that latter part of the residency requirement that this bill that we’re debating in the House today will change, as it were.

The way it changes this requirement, of course, is that previously you would have—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker, but the person applying—had to have lived in New Zealand for those five years after they turn 50. But once this bill passes—and I’m glad to see that it’s supported unanimously—people who are applying can stay in any one of those Realm nations as well and have that residency period count towards the residency requirement for this bill.

So, as I was saying, it allows a lot more flexibility when it comes to the pension. This bill also recognises the special relationship that New Zealand has with Pacific nations. As, in fact, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, said recently at ASB Polyfest, this is undeniable because we are part of the Pacific—there is no them and us when it comes to New Zealand. That holds even more true when it comes to the Realm nations, of course.

At this point, I’ll just go a little bit into what that actually means. Now, with the Cook Islands and with Niue, a little bit of history—and I actually found this quite interesting as well. The Cook Islands was a dependent territory—and, of course, you’ll know this very well, Madam Assistant Speaker—of New Zealand between 1901 and 1965, after which they became a self-governing nation in free association with New Zealand. There was a similar situation for Niue as well, although self-governance kicked in for Niue in 1974.

Now, the self-governing status and free association with New Zealand means, of course, that people who are born in these Realm nations—and that includes Tokelau, as well—are considered New Zealand citizens. But with those from the Cooks and Niue, their Governments are, of course, responsible for the law making and for conducting their own affairs, which is slightly different from Tokelau, which has been administered by New Zealand since 1926. So that’s what it means when we refer to the Realm nations, and that’s why the constitutional responsibilities that New Zealand has, of course, are a little bit different again.

Now, the member Peeni Henare touched upon the importance within Pacific cultures of passing on the unique heritage and unique languages, identities, and culture that define us. And, actually, that’s something that I can relate to as well, coming from, originally, India and then Singapore. It’s something that a lot of the Asian populations here in New Zealand hold on to also. We have multiple homes, and there’s really nothing wrong with that.

What this bill addresses is the upheaval that a lot of families experience when, you know, they might have come here, potentially from one of the Realm nations, contributed to New Zealand, gone back to, say, the Cooks or to Niue to be with their family, to contribute to those countries as well, had businesses there, and then they’re expected, under the status quo legislation, to uproot themselves—it’s an upheaval for their families—and to come back to New Zealand to fulfil that five-year residency qualification criteria. And that’s not just about the person who’s applying—it’s never just about the person who’s applying—it’s about their families as well and the repercussions that that upheaval has on their families. This bill, when it’s passed, will remove that and it will allow for a much greater sense of stability in that respect, as well.

We often talk about how ethnically diverse New Zealand, and indeed Auckland, has become. We talk about the fact that we have over 220 ethnicities, now, represented, and we collectively speak over 160 languages. We often also say, and I strongly believe it, that our strength as a nation lies in that very diversity. So, if we’re going to say that, then the onus is on us to actually walk the talk and make it such that this diversity can flourish in New Zealand.

I often use a little analogy, where, if one looks at different threads, for example, they’re unique, they have a certain amount of strength and beauty in and of themselves, but woven together that strength and that endurance is enhanced, and it weaves into a beautiful piece of fabric that’s collectively so much stronger. That’s how I see the strength that lies in our nation when we talk about the strength of our diversity as well.

So this bill, basically, at the crux of it, is about making the system fairer. It’s about making it fairer for people from our Realm nations. It’s about ensuring that they’re not uprooted and that their families—

Hon Member: I raise a point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): We were dealing with the matter. [Matt King in Chamber without a tie]

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I’ve kind of lost my train of thought. Yes—it’s about making the system fairer for everyone. It’s about making the system fairer for people from our Realm nations, who will face a lot less upheaval and sense of being uprooted, but it’s also about making things fairer for New Zealanders, because uprooting and expecting people to face upheaval is never in the best interests for us either. So it is with absolute pleasure that I stand today and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 3 April.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when the House last considered the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, Jan Tinetti had the call, and she has her full 10 minutes to speak.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the other night, when we got to the end of the night, I perhaps had one of the shortest speeches on record, with just three words recorded in Hansard: “It is a—”. And I’ve had lots of suggestions about how to finish that sentence since that time, but I’m going to finish by saying it’s actually a pleasure to stand here and talk on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill.

I’m honoured to have the last call on this first reading. I’m honoured because this bill starts addressing the renter’s rights. We are a Government that is committed to a review of the Residential Tenancies Act because it is no longer fit for purpose. This is a bill that is beginning to modernise those laws. I speak here this evening as former renter and a former landlord, and I understand, for the people now, how hard it is to rent and have stability in their renting.

I understand, because, as people know, I’ve mentioned my previous work life as a principal quite a lot in this House. I had a school where I only had two of my families who owned properties and the rest rented, and renting became harder and harder and harder as time went on. One of those things that made it harder was actually the letting fees that people were being charged. Now, in the couple of times that we’ve been hearing this already over the last couple of weeks around the renting, we’ve heard and been told of the fact that maybe some of these stories that people have been saying might not be quite accurate, or that this bill would not fix those particular stories.

I want to read the member Chris Penk when just the other night he said, “Some of the examples that have been given from the other side of the House have spoken to examples which, if true, would be distressing.” Was he questioning that those examples that I’ve seen on a day-to-day basis were not true? I can tell that member that the fact that I’ve seen people who have had to leave their houses due to houses being sold, or have struggled getting into rentals, or having to go because rents have been put up—they’re probably leaving three or four times a year; they are changing over. That’s three or four times that they are having to pay letting fees.

Let me just put that into perspective. We heard the other night that people can be expected to pay up to four weeks’ bond, two weeks’ rent in advance, and one week rent plus GST as a letting fee. In Tauranga, in the area that my families came from, the average rentals are currently $456 per week. Now, that doesn’t sound a lot by some standards in some cities, but, remember, these are people that earn very, very little. So four weeks’ bond at $456 per week is $1,824; two weeks’ rent in advance, $912; one week plus GST as a letting fee is $524.40. All up, people are having to pay, just to get into a rental, $3,260.40. No wonder people are really struggling to get into housing and into rentals, and if they’re having to pay three or four times a year, I think we can do something, through this bill, about making life easier for those people.

We can’t just ignore this problem. We have to do something about it, and that is why I am so happy to stand here and say that this bill will make a difference. This will enable letting fees to be subject to market forces. In any other area, it is unheard of for a contract between two parties to charge a third party for that transaction, so, therefore, why would it be acceptable in the rental market? I have been a landlord; I’ve said that. I was a landlord in two different properties when I lived in schoolhouses; I had my own properties and rented those out. At all times, I knew the importance of looking after my tenants. I kept the rent at the same level. I used outside agents, but none of those costs ever went back to my tenant, because I knew the importance of looking after those people, and that is really, really important.

This is what this bill aims to do. It aims to make it easier for people to get into rentals, and it aims for people to not have that ongoing cost. It is the first of many parts of legislation that we will be changing to make things easier for our tenants and for people. It will give them the security that our member Greg O’Connor talked about in his speech two nights ago, when he talked about the overseas examples of people who have greater security. I know those people, I have seen those people, and I can’t understand why we are not aiming—which we will be from now, but in the past why we have not aimed—to ensure that we have greater security for our tenants in this country.

We’ve had great feedback on this. We’ve had feedback that this will be a good bill, and so, on that, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.