Thursday, 12 April 2018

THURSDAY, 12 APRIL 2018

THURSDAY, 12 APRIL 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Autonomous Region of Bougainville, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tuvalu, Tonga, and Vanuatu—Legislatures

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome members from the legislatures of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tuvalu, Tonga, and Vanuatu, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 1 May. On that day, the annual review debate will be concluded and the House will consider other legislation, including the first readings of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation Bill and the second reading of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. Wednesday, 2 May will be a members’ day. Nicola Willis will make her maiden statement after question time on that day. On Thursday, 3 May, the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill will receive its second reading.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the Leader of the House tell us whether or not the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill will go to a select committee for the usual amount of time so that those affected can make appropriate submissions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Yes, that is my expectation.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget Policy Statement—Capital and Operating Allowances

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What are the proposed capital and operating allowances in the 2017 Budget Policy Statement, and how do these compare to previous periods?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Budget Policy Statement (BPS) released in December 2017 proposed a new capital allowance of $3.4 billion in 2018, $3.4 billion in 2019, $3.1 billion in 2020, and $2.7 billion in 2021, averaging $3.15 billion each Budget. This compares to an average capital allowance of only $1.43 billion between 2009 and 2017. The BPS proposed operating allowances of $2.6 billion in 2018 and $1.875 billion in each year from 2019 to 2021, the average new operating allowance being $2.1 billion each year. This compares to an average new operating allowance of only $953 million between 2009 and 2017. These larger allowances reflect the important investments that this Government will need to make to return our public services and infrastructure to the quality that New Zealanders expect and deserve.

Dr Deborah Russell: Are the proposed allowances for the next four Budgets larger than what had previously been set aside for this period, and why is it important that this is the case?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The operating and capital allowances provided for in the Budget Policy Statement by this Government are larger than what the previous Government had proposed to invest. For example, in Budget 2018, we are proposing a capital allowance of $3.4 billion where the previous Government had only proposed $2 billion. The Government can afford to make these investments because we reversed the previous Government’s poorly targeted tax cuts, by adopting a sensible debt reduction track, and by more fairly sharing the benefits of economic growth.

Dr Deborah Russell: Do the proposed capital and operating allowances allow the Government to meet the Budget responsibility rules?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government can deliver the necessary and important investments to deal with the social and infrastructure deficits we have inherited while remaining consistent with the Budget responsibility rules, which ensure we manage the books responsibly. These rules are important because New Zealanders need to know that we are being careful with the country’s finances and that we are prepared for future shocks—external or through natural disasters. The Government’s priorities reflect a better balance between the need to invest in critical public services and to prepare for a sustainable future.

Energy and Resources—End of Oil and Gas Exploration and Security of Electricity Supply

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will today’s announcement of an end to offshore oil and gas exploration put at risk the 11,000 jobs which depend on that industry; if not, why?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No; our Government will invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new infrastructure and clean energy projects in regions that currently rely on fossil fuels, meaning that as we transition away from these fuels, regions that currently rely on them for their economy will see new jobs created.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is use of low-emission natural gas for electricity preferable to high-emission coal?

SPEAKER: Before the member answers—because I couldn’t identify who it was, I won’t punish the National Party, but I’m going to warn the National members that they must be quiet when supplementary questions are being asked.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Could she repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Sure.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is use of low-emission natural gas for electricity preferable to high-emission coal?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In the short term, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does New Zealand still rely on burning coal for security of electricity supply?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. And I can assure the member asking the question that we will have security of supply of energy, because it doesn’t affect current permits and there’s room for future exploration within the current permits.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, that’s a lie.

SPEAKER: Order! Ms Collins, did you just make an unparliamentary remark?

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, I did. I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a very serious warning. That’s the sort of comment that is just not acceptable here.

Hon Paula Bennett: So in light of the Prime Minister’s answer that coal is not used, was the coal-fired power station at Huntly turned on this week due to gas having to be shut down on Tuesday of this week?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The concept of security of supply is not, in fact, in jeopardy, because we have security of supply for a number of years and these permits allow us to explore into the future.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that the Prime Minister might not know the answer, and that’s what the—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paula Bennett: No. I’m not being rude, sir.

SPEAKER: No. If the member has a point of order, she will raise it. She will not attempt to make political points as she does it, or she will not be allowed to continue.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not making a political point. What I meant was—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. She did attempt to make a political point. I have ruled that that is the case. She has argued with me. She is now on a final warning.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific and, as a consequence of that, I accept it can be difficult to give an answer if you don’t know and when my primary was quite broad, but there was no attempt whatsoever to answer my question.

SPEAKER: When I stand up, the member resumes her seat. Do you have a further supplementary?

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, my point of order is—

SPEAKER: No, no. Does the member have a further supplementary?

Hon Paula Bennett: Yes, I do.

SPEAKER: Well, get on with it if you want to continue.

Hon Paula Bennett: Was the coal-fired power station at Huntly turned on this week because gas was unable to be produced enough to actually do the 300,000 households and businesses that need it?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: My understanding is that Huntly is still being used but there is security of energy supply into the future.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will New Zealand need to burn high-emission dirty coal more regularly or begin importing expensive foreign gas because New Zealand’s natural gas sector was today issued a death sentence by that Government?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Senior Citizens—Positive Ageing Strategy

3. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Seniors: What announcements has she made recently regarding a new Positive Ageing Strategy for New Zealand?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Seniors): Last Friday, I attended the annual Positive Ageing Expo in Nelson to announce this Government’s commitment to a new positive ageing strategy. Currently, there are around 750,000 people aged over 65. In 18 years, there will be 1.2 million—a quarter of our population. While it’s great news that more of us are living longer, healthier lives than ever before, it also means that there are challenges and changes to services and community that we have to consider and plan for as a nation. New Zealand needs to have a strategy and plan to help our older people live well. It needs to fit who we are, how we live now, which is closely connected to where we live, and what is likely to happen to ensure we’re in a good position to deal with the predicted demographic shifts.

Darroch Ball: What are the particular areas of focus for the revised strategy?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That will be determined by our public consultation, but there are three obvious areas we need to look at. One is supporting seniors in the workforce and how business can better recruit, retain, and possibly re-train older citizens. We certainly don’t want people over 65 to be forced to work, but many of them want to and a growing number need to due to personal circumstances. Secondly, we need to ensure appropriate housing options, and, thirdly, I think we need to talk about what is the means to keep connections through our lives to stop people being isolated or lonely as they age.

Darroch Ball: How will the strategy be developed?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In the first instance, by talking directly to New Zealanders to see what they want and what they expect from their Government, councils, and communities to have a positive and fulfilling life in their senior years. We also need to reach out to the next generation of seniors—those currently in their 40s and 50s right now—because we want this to endure. Getting this strategy is right. This strategy was originally put in place in 2001 and expired in 2010. Therefore, for the last eight years, the country has been running blind, knowing that we are running into an ageing population, where they will outnumber 15-year-olds by the time we get to 2036.

KiwiBuild—Dwelling Size and Minister’s Discussions with Banks

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements in the House and to the media?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, in the context they were given and where they have been accurately reported.

Hon Judith Collins: When he told Parliament last week, in relation to the size of the KiwiBuild dwellings at Unitec, “Well, I would note that the Unitary Plan, approved by Auckland Council in mid-2016, set minimum floor sizes of 30 square metres for studio dwellings and 45 square metres for one or more bedroom dwellings.”, was he just “making fun”, as he told media afterwards?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was quoting the former Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English. I was not saying what we would do.

Hon Judith Collins: If, as he told media last week, he was just “making fun”, why did he also tell media that he was in discussion with banks around changing lending criteria for dwellings of that size?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I told media that I was in discussions with banks about lending for prefabricated housing and for multi-dwelling apartments because I am.

Hon Judith Collins: Which banks has he been talking to around changing the lending criteria to suit his KiwiBuild programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: If the member wants to put down a written question to me about which meetings I’m having, when, and with whom, I’ll consider answering them then.

Hon Judith Collins: When he told Parliament last week that the KiwiBuild dwellings at Unitec could be 30 square metres, did he realise that that is smaller than the standard double-sized garage, which is 36 square metres?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I wasn’t saying that would be the size of KiwiBuild dwellings. I was quoting the former Deputy Prime Minister under the National Government, because he was advocating apartments of that size. I wasn’t.

Hon Judith Collins: If he was just “making fun” to an answer to a serious question in Parliament, then was he making fun when he promised to build 16,000 houses in three years, and he hasn’t built one yet?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. I was deadly serious, unlike the former Government, who did nothing to build affordable houses in nine years and allowed a housing crisis to spin out of control, and they think it’s a joke.

Transport Infrastructure—Funding Figures

5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: How much is funding increasing by, in dollar terms, for the Local Road Maintenance activity class for the first three years of the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport; and when added to his answers yesterday for Local Road Improvements and Regional Improvements funding increases of $310 million and $260 million respectively, what is the total combined increase, in dollar terms, for these three activity classes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Taking the average of the first three years of the last Government’s Government policy statement on land transport issued in 2015 and the average of the first three years of the draft Government policy statement issued last week, local road improvements increased by $310 million and regional improvements funding increases by $260 million. The total for the three activity classes the member mentions is $890 million. I should note for the member that the $1.2 billion he cited yesterday includes the nearly 20 percent increase in State highway maintenance.

Jami-Lee Ross: Was the Prime Minister correct when she said in question time on Tuesday that over the three-year period “regional and local road improvements [increased by] $1.2 billion”, which yesterday he confirmed included three activity classes—those being local road maintenance, local road improvements, and regional improvements—which he says today adds up to $890 million?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The reason the Prime Minister made that statement was to point out that, despite Opposition scaremongering, there are increases in other categories of road funding in the first three years that outweigh the reduction in State highway improvements in the first three years.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if the Prime Minister was correct—

SPEAKER: And I couldn’t hear all of the answer, whether it was correct or not, because Paula Bennett was interjecting. So I’m not going to make him do it again.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You couldn’t hear the answer. I couldn’t hear the answer. If I’m asking—

SPEAKER: Well, if you can’t hear the answer because your colleague is interjecting, I’m not going to protect you.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can be helpful. The member said that the Prime Minister made a $300 million mistake.

SPEAKER: I’m going to give the member one opportunity to withdraw that comment and apologise for its inaccuracy, or I will punish the Opposition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And I do want to warn members, if they make statements like that on points of order in the future, there is a very real chance that they’ll face the Privileges Committee, because the member knew it was not true when he made it.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why did he tell the House yesterday that the Prime Minister’s figure of $1.2 billion was made up of the three categories asked in my primary question, and then today he tells the House that the Prime Minister’s $1.2 billion includes an additional category he didn’t tell us about yesterday? Why the inconsistency?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The statement I made to the House wasn’t exclusive of the fact that it includes State highway maintenance. I said that it includes local roads, local road maintenance, and regional roads. But I would point out to the member—[Interruption] Actually, I’ll leave it.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why does he keep changing the way in which he justifies the Prime Minister’s $1.2 billion figure, which I’ve proven is inaccurate, to cover up what is a mistake that his Prime Minister has made?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why do we keep getting inconsistent answers from this Government on matters of transport, where the Prime Minister says one figure, he justifies it one way yesterday, justifies it a different way today—the same inconsistency we saw when it came to the building of the Ōtaki Expressway?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I suggest that the member focuses on asking clear, intelligible questions that can be validly answered, unlike the last two questions he’s asked in the last two days.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is $890 million the same as $1.2 billion, or is there a $310 million gap between him and his Prime Minister?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: When you add State highway maintenance to local roads improvements, local road maintenance, and regional road improvements, you get $1.2 billion. For the member’s benefit, State highways, like local roads, are often in the regions. The Prime Minister’s comments refer to the total increase in funding available to be spent in the regions, not the total increase of the narrow activity classes that the member is pretending.

Oil and Gas Industry—Block Offer 2018, Huntly Power Station, and Offshore Petroleum Exploration Permits

6. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What announcement has she made about Block Offer 2018?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Today, I announced the next step in the block offer process, which is the mechanism for allocating new oil and gas exploration permits. This announcement signals the start of consultation with iwi and hapū and the local community on the proposed Block Offer 2018 released area for onshore petroleum exploration permits. The proposed released area is restricted to the onshore Taranaki Basin and covers a 1,703 square kilometre area.

Tamati Coffey: What other announcements has the Government made today?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Order! That question is not related enough. That’s one use of a supplementary; have another go.

Tamati Coffey: What other announcement has the Minister made about her portfolio today?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I have announced only the 2018 Block Offer, but I have been supporting the Prime Minister in a further energy-related announcement that she has been making today, where she announced that no new offshore petroleum exploration permits would be granted. This is a significant—

SPEAKER: That’s enough, thank you.

Tamati Coffey: What commitment has the Government made to existing permit holders?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have committed to protecting existing exploration and mining rights and the ability for discoveries to be developed. Let me be very clear: we are not preventing any existing permit holders from undertaking the exploration that their permits entitle them to. One of the main priorities is protecting the livelihoods of those who work in our extractive industries. I want to acknowledge New Zealand First on this and also acknowledge that this is a Government made up of three parties with different views who have all come together to make the responsible decision for New Zealand’s long-term future. I look forward to the National Party joining us.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister, on a scale of one to 10, one being zen-like calm and 10 being furious rage, tell us how she reacted to learning this week that a shortage of gas supply meant that the Huntly coal-fired station had to be turned on?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The reason why the Huntly station needed to be turned on was because of an extreme weather event that stopped the gas going through. It was not because of a shortage of supply. If that member thinks that there is a shortage of supply, he should look to his time as the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Alongside amendments that she may place on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill that’s coming before the House when the House returns in two weeks’ time, will she have a clause to prevent extreme weather getting in the road of energy supply?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, that’s called a climate action plan. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Just to remind people it might be very close to the school holidays, but they haven’t started yet—

Hon Ron Mark: Ooh!

SPEAKER: Question No. 7, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. That includes you, Mr Mark.

Regional Economic Development—Offshore Petroleum Exploration Permits and Provincial Growth Fund

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How are the Government’s policies advancing economic development in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The advancement of the Government’s policies in terms of economic development in the regions is best described as a pragmatic, far-sighted approach.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does he say to the Mayor of New Plymouth, who said that his Government’s decision to end oil and gas exploration is a “kick in the guts for the region”?

Hon SHANE JONES: The gentleman in question met with me last week, and I fear that he’s not in full possession of the facts. The reality, as he will soon learn, is that not a single right currently enjoyed by that sector will be changed, weakened, or summarily dismissed, and when he is in full possession of the facts, I think that he will change his tune.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that offering $150,000 for exploration of clean energy options in the Taranaki makes up for the premature extinction of a multibillion-dollar industry that sustains thousands of jobs in that region?

Hon SHANE JONES: The member is quite correct. There are a huge number of jobs in the Taranaki region through black gold and white gold, and the allocation of funding which the member refers to is but the small first step. It was greeted with acclamation because many of the industry of Taranaki realise that there’s great disruptiveness facing them and they want to work with the Government to open up new opportunities for engineering and energy solutions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he consulted on stopping oil and gas exploration, and in what way did he champion the region?

Hon SHANE JONES: Thank you very much for that question. The actual outcome that the Prime Minister announced today was to reassure the current stakeholders in the industry and the owners of the rights granted under statute to them that they remain unchanged. But the Prime Minister also has reflected, on which I was consulted about, a set of far distant changes—but because of the transition we have to go through as a consequence of the last regime committing us to international obligations we can’t walk away from.

Andrew Falloon: Will his billion-dollar provincial growth fund create 3,100 jobs in South Canterbury and North Otago and $32 billion in royalties and taxes which would have been created by the Barque gas development?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m presuming that the member is referring to the rights that already exist in law off the coast of Te Wai Pounamu. None of those rights are changed as a consequence of today’s announcement. The owners of those rights have an opportunity under the law to fully exploit them. They must strike a balance between raising the capital, actually finding the geological resource—and stop listening to scaremongering, irrelevant backbench MPs.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Minister tell the House what was running through his mind when this picture was taken?

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t think I should be judged as a consequence of that photo, but I have, from time to time, been known to use such facial expressions when looking across the House. I think it’s fair to say that I’m known as an expressive politician, and in that particular case I obviously need a facial massage. Thank you very much.

Climate Change—Coal-fired Industries, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Petroleum Exploration Permits

8. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Climate Change: What impact will stopping offshore oil and gas exploration have on New Zealand’s emissions?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Discontinuing new offshore oil and gas exploration will prevent any new emissions from that drilling, above and beyond the emissions that are already occurring from existing oil and gas extraction, which is projected to continue for most of the next three decades. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before Mr Muller takes a supplementary, I’m going to ask his colleague who is sitting next to him and who continued to interject to stop.

Todd Muller: Does the Minister acknowledge that natural gas has a huge part to play in global energy supply; if so, why should New Zealand turn our back on assisting the globe in reducing their emissions, and the economic opportunity that offers us domestically?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The premise of that question is that New Zealand can start exporting significant amounts of gas to countries that are moving from coal to renewables. Actually, the balance of evidence is that they are passing directly from coal to renewables without passing through gas first. Many of the numbers that I’ve seen that have been chucked around this morning have been somewhat over-optimistic given that every country in the world, bar one, is signed up to the Paris Agreement to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to get to net zero emissions by the year 2050. The existing operations in New Zealand are due to continue for the next three decades. That takes us out to about the year 2050, which is about the point that most of the rest of the world will have made the switch towards renewable energy. If we want to make money from exporting energy, we would be much better to invest that money in renewable energy than in gas.

Todd Muller: So does the Minister disagree, then, with the international panel on climate change, who in their last report stated that the use of natural gas would increase prior to 2050 due to its use as a bridging fuel in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Not in New Zealand.

Todd Muller: How many tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum can be avoided if use of coal for industrial heat is substituted by natural gases?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said in my answer to the primary question, New Zealand’s existing operations will continue for much of the next three decades. If we stop exploring today, what that means is we won’t be adding any new emissions to that which is already projected to occur over the course of those decades. So this is about not adding to the problem.

Todd Muller: Given the Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to climate change in a manner that does not threaten food production, how does the Minister see nine billion people being fed without nitrogen fertiliser, which is produced by using natural gas?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Nitrogen oxide is actually one of the worst greenhouse gas emissions out there. It’s many, many more times damaging in terms of climate change than methane or even than carbon dioxide. So what we need to do is move to sustainable forms of agriculture as well where our emissions from nitrous oxide are netted out. [Interruption] And if his colleagues don’t want to hear the answer, I won’t continue.

Todd Muller: Does the Minister have confidence that our large coal-fired industries will invest in gas when there is no future offshore oil and gas exploration available; and, if so, on what basis?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I think that the member is referring primarily to Fonterra and other large users of coal in their drying operations to turn milk into milk powder and then export it over to places like China and so on, where the water is added back in. Actually, there are others ways of providing that industrial heat, and I know that Fonterra are actually working very hard on alternatives to coal. I know that they’ve been exploring gas, but they’re also exploring electrification, woodchip, and other ways of providing that energy. We aim to assist with that transition. Fonterra itself actually has committed to becoming net zero carbon dioxide by the year 2050 and committing to building no new coal-fired stations after the year 2030. My response to that is, “That’s a good start. How can we help to bring that forward and make it more ambitious?”.

Todd Muller: So why does the Minister have such confidence in alternative energy solutions such as woodchip biomass when if Fonterra’s South Island dryers got transformed for that energy source, it would need a forest the size of Belgium to run them?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I didn’t say that Fonterra were switching over to woodchip. I said that that was one of the options that they are exploring. They are exploring others as well. Obviously, electrification would be the best, and that can be run off renewable forms of electricity generation. This Government is committed to 100 percent renewable electricity generation by the year 2035, which should provide all the power that Fonterra needs.

Prisons—Prison Population

9. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: When he said “So we are looking at a range of options to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over 15 years”, what options is he considering?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): All of them.

Hon David Bennett: If he is considering reducing the prison population, has the Minister suspended any plans for the new build or extensions at Waikeria Prison, given that a decision was due by the middle of April, as reported by Andrew Little?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: This is a decision that’s a very serious decision and one that we don’t take lightly, but we won’t be rushed into making that decision, despite the time frame we’d been given before, because we are looking at all the options.

Hon David Bennett: If he is considering reducing the prison population, would the Minister consider having discussions with the Minister of Police on elevating police criminal prosecution thresholds?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’ll look at all options, but that’s not to say that we’ll implement all options. So if that’s an option, yeah, we’ll look at it.

Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister of Justice around changing bail laws for violent and serious offenders to reduce the prison population?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, we are looking at all the options. That’s not to say that we’ll implement all of the options, but we’ll discuss them, and the bail laws is one that we have discussed, we have looked at. That’s not to say that we’ll make any changes, but it would be remiss of us not to explore all these options fully.

Health Services—Buildings

10. LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Health: What examples of capital pressures has he seen while visiting DHBs?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I have now visited almost all of our district health boards (DHBs) and, on many occasions, the state of facilities has been raised directly with me. I’ve seen buildings at or near their use-by date, I’ve seen buildings that have suffered from years of deferred maintenance, I’ve heard stories of patients being treated in corridors, but, most importantly, I have seen staff delivering quality care despite all these challenges.

Louisa Wall: What examples has he seen at Nelson Hospital?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Nelson Hospital has well-documented seismic issues. Its main buildings are 50 years old and will need to be replaced in time, but perhaps most shocking to me was to see nurses working in corridors and using card tables as makeshift workstations. Both the staff and the patients of Nelson Hospital deserve much better.

Louisa Wall: What pressures is he aware of at Capital and Coast DHB?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Well, even Wellington Hospital—one of our most modern hospitals, built under the outstanding fifth Labour Government—has its problems. Wellington Hospital has kilometre after kilometre of copper pipes, and between January 2015 and October last year, there were 276 leaks in those pipes, and another eight leaks in January. We have a plan to fund health more sustainably. That will be evident in the upcoming Budget, although we won’t be able to fix all the problems we have inherited in one Budget.

Building and Construction Industry—Fire Safety Reports and Review

11. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Why did she wait four months between receiving expert fire engineer Dr Tony Enright’s report on concerns with aluminium composite panel cladding on 19 November and commissioning a peer review on 6 March?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): I’m advised that during the four-month period, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) consulted the relevant accreditation bodies, the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand and CertMark International, for feedback on the report, as well as seeking supporting evidence from Dr Enright. MBIE then started the process for engaging an engineer in February, who began the peer review in March. As the member will appreciate, when MBIE are assessing whether building materials are to be suspended, that process must be appropriate, it must be fair and robust, and that takes time.

Andrew Bayly: Why did she wait for four months when Australian building authorities have already accepted the findings of Dr Enright’s reports, and one banned their cladding product in February?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I want to point out to the member that the state of Victoria has only banned certain aluminium composite panel (ACP). Also, the state of Victoria originally identified more than 1,300 buildings as most likely having ACP cladding. But here in Aotearoa New Zealand, interim preliminary results provided by most councils indicate that there is not a prevalence of combustible ACPs installed in high-rise buildings in New Zealand. Banning a product is a very serious imposition and has only been done once before, under the Building Act of 2004. I am very confident that the appropriate regulatory process is currently being followed. Suspending code mark certificates without robust evidence is something MBIE does not do lightly.

Andrew Bayly: Has she met with Dr Enright; and, if not, why not?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Dr Enright, as far as I’m informed, lives in Australia. The issue of dealing with Dr Enright is something that my officials do. MBIE are currently ensuring that the report that Dr Enright provided is being peer reviewed. We are waiting for the peer review of that process, and we will get the peer review in the next few weeks.

Marja Lubeck: What steps is the Minister undertaking to review the products regime, which includes products such as ACP?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I am undertaking a review of products. We know that reviewing products here in Aotearoa New Zealand is something that has not been done for many years. We know that there are issues with some products and we are doing a first-line review. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is undergoing a review right now, and that is something that we are very glad as a Government that we will be doing very soon.

Andrew Bayly: Why didn’t she simply suspend the use of the product rather than allowing her ministry to waste four months consulting only with those agencies responsible for issuing the disputed cladding certification?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I refer the member to the answer I gave just before. Banning a product—suspending a product—is something that has only ever been done in New Zealand once before, under the Building Act 2004. We are going through the right process right now to ensure that the right decision is made. We are going through a peer review process, and we will have that report from MBIE very soon.

Census 2018—Census Papers and Integrity

12. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he have confidence in his Department?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I do.

Dr Jian Yang: How can he have confidence in his department, when there are New Zealanders who had still not received access codes or papers for the 2018 census more than a month after census night, despite contacting the helpline, and others who completed the census online but have been sent census documents afterwards because there is no record of them having completed the census?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Census response rates are running close to target, and Statistics New Zealand has been investigating ways in which they might boost response rates in the final field operation period, which we’re actually still in at the moment. Statistics New Zealand has met its target for online and self-completion rates and is on track to meet the remaining targets. The self-response target was 70 percent, and it’s running at about that. The online target was 70 percent, and it has exceeded that target. Currently we’re tracking at about 90 percent completion for the South Island and lower North Island, and what that does is it enables us to put resources into the areas of greatest need. All indications are that the census will be completed in line with targets.

Dr Jian Yang: How will these many problems affect the integrity and accuracy of the 2018 census?

Hon JAMES SHAW: They won’t. We’re actually on track to deliver the census exactly according to the plan that was put in place by a previous Minister of Statistics, Craig Foss. So all of the decisions and plans that Minister Foss put in place are actually being delivered on in accordance with all of those targets. It’s important to note that this is the first census that we’ve actually been able to track progress on a daily basis. In previous censuses, we had to wait until the end of the census period before we could start enumerating, and at that point we would find out how we were tracking. Now, because of the shift to census online, we’re actually able to track every day, and that enables us to shift resources into the areas where there are lower response rates.

Dr Jian Yang: What can he say to people in remote regions who are worried about missing out on Government funding for essential services because of the problems in their regions with the 2018 census?

Hon JAMES SHAW: This has always been true in the census. Obviously there are some areas which have lower response rates than others. That’s why the current way of doing the census enables us to shift resources to those areas. There are some places where we’re doing up to six doorknocks per household, in order to make sure that those people can be included. There are places where we’ve actually hand-delivered papers to every single household that hadn’t received them yet. That process is still continuing, and from all indications we’re on track to meet the census numbers, as with any previous census. Census completion rates are never 100 percent; it’s in the high 90s, and it looks like this census will be on track as with historical trends.

Dr Jian Yang: What is his response to The Northland Age editor, Peter Jackson, who said, “This census shows all the hallmarks of being a shambles.”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: What I would say is that this census looks to be more successful than previous censuses, that we’re meeting all of our targets, and that that person, whoever wrote that article, should stop believing everything that he sees on Twitter.

Urgent Debates

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Permits—Announcements

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Paula Bennett seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s announcement that no further offshore oil and gas exploration permits will be granted. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. It requires the matter to be of such urgency that it justifies the House spending a substantial amount of time debating it. This issue—[Interruption] I’m not sure which member it was there who interjected, but it’s not too late for me to change the final paragraph in this. The issue is an important one for New Zealand. While its effects are not likely to have an impact immediately, it does warrant the urgent attention of the House. There is no other foreseeable opportunity to debate it. Therefore I call on the Hon Paula Bennett—[Interruption] Who said that? Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: I call on the Hon Paula Bennett to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Today I just feel pretty gutted for regional New Zealand. I feel pretty gutted for the workers in Taranaki whose jobs are in wind-down. I feel gutted for the business manager of an engineering firm in New Plymouth who, on hearing the news today, immediately walked into the HR department and said, “Stop all hiring now.” I feel sorry for the small businesses in places like New Plymouth who depend on the income that comes from natural gas when they were blindsided by this Government today and deeply let down by New Zealand First—deeply let down. Shame on New Zealand First. For all of the words that they have used in supporting our regions, when it really came down to it, they rolled over to the Greens, left their principles behind, and did not back our regions.

As has been said through the media today, this is a death sentence for some of our towns and for some of those that had jobs and are dependent on it. But more than that, this does not help climate change. This does not actually help those very people who purport that this will support our environment and make a huge difference. In fact, it is completely and utterly the complete opposite of that, and that is the case that I want to make.

New Zealand First have said, “We will not compromise [on] what we’ve agreed on.” New Zealand First have said that they have “assigned a fair bit of time and a lot of people to make sure that we know exactly where this is going, in line with what we’ve agreed with the Labour Party.” New Zealand First have said that offshore oil and gas drilling was an essential feature of domestic and export growth, Mr Jones, and that businesses and enterprises enabling it will get full Government support. Mr Jones has also said, “Protesters need to bear in mind we are buying oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and other far-flung places when we should be focusing on making an industry in our country.” So, Mr Jones, how does that actually concur with what your Government has announced today?

I would like to make the point now that it’s quite clear that, actually, what will happen is that this will not actually help climate change. Because petroleum is produced around the world, as Mr Jones has said, even in the Gulf of Mexico, the bans on exploration in New Zealand will do nothing to reduce emissions or reduce the world supply or use of oil and gas. Instead, other countries will produce it and we will have to import it at a higher cost.

It’s quite simple that we need the oil that we’re producing. It’s used here in New Zealand. If we are not producing it here in New Zealand, then that simply means we’ll be purchasing more from overseas—and that means that more emissions are used to get the oil here. It’s potentially being produced less sustainably and actually doesn’t work for the betterment of either our own environment here in New Zealand or, more importantly, the world’s emissions profile that we happen to be a part of. New Zealand is a small producer on the world stage, making up 0.014 percent of global oil supply. So if we stop making it, it’s kind of easy for others to do that. They then have to get it here to New Zealand, and you can see the cycle—actually, this is not helping in any way, shape, or form.

We then move to the natural gas component, where we say that, actually, exploration can continue under the current permits. So to drill twice, I am told, costs around about $150 million. There’s a good chance you may not hit that natural supply that is sitting there. And then, they can’t actually move the few metres they might need to because there’s no more permits. So what we’re already hearing from these companies is that they will stop their exploration already because of the cost of actually doing it and the fact that they’re not going to get any more new permits, and, as a consequence of that, we can see a reduction in natural gas.

So I am informed—and I went to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand website and had a good look at it—that there is around enough for 11 years’ supply as we stand now. In this House, in question time today, we were told 30-odd years, and 20 years from Labour—which, quite frankly, tells me that we don’t know how much, if we’re hearing one number from the Greens and then we’re hearing another number from Labour as to how much is actually there. So there are 11 years of known reserves, right. The Government says there are plenty of potential sources left, but those are unconfirmed, and it is very risky to rely on hoping that someone strikes it lucky on existing permits. At that cost, and when they have no certainty of future permits and, in fact, they’ve been told there won’t be any, they are highly likely to pull out, which means that those 11,000 jobs are well and truly in jeopardy and at real risk.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, they’re not.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, tell that to the people of Taranaki, Mr Robertson. Go there and front up and tell those people in those towns and in those cities that, actually, their jobs are not at risk. Because I am standing here today and saying they do not believe it—they do not believe it. And it isn’t those that are wealthy; it is the welder whose whole family depends on his income, and it is the baker that took the risk and set up the cafe down the road that serves those workers. They are the ones at risk by this announcement that’s been made today, and in such a way that it’s done from Wellington, not in a town that it’s going to affect. And we hear that there’s no plan to front up to those people in the next few days or anywhere else: “We’ll just sit back and watch, without any of the kind of emphasis and actually having the courage to see people face to face and tell them exactly what is really going on.”

Hon Grant Robertson: Questioning courage. That’s a new Standing Order.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I also want to make the point that there are—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can use the word.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —around 11,720 jobs in the sector, and that was projected in 2015, so we are talking substantial jobs as well as those that are associated with it and make a fundamental difference.

The other is the issue of coal, and it’s real. So, as we have seen, as early as Tuesday this week—and I understand where you’re coming from Minister Woods, because I heard that you were very unhappy to hear that, actually, coal was having to be turned on the very week that you were making this big announcement of cancelling—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wasn’t.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —national gas expert permits.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wasn’t.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I’m sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m referring to the Minister, of course.

So I understand the anger that’s coming across in that and why, actually, the Minister wouldn’t front up to the communities that this affects, face to face, and tell them what’s really going on. It’s easier to sort of sit back here and say it.

What’s really happening there is that we have times when we need coal, and it is for different reasons, as the Minister stated today. That was a weather event. Through health and safety, those pipes all needed to be shut down. Luckily, we had the backup of Huntly, which the Greens, of course, have not been supporting for years and have been telling us absolutely has to be shut down immediately. And I know, as the previous climate change Minister, I faced many questions from them on that very issue. Well, that’s the reason: because it’s a backup and it actually supports us.

If we accept that at most we’ve got 11 years of reserves and that we’ve got a risk of those natural gas companies actually not even continuing the exploration that they’re currently doing, because they know they have zero support from this Government, we are likely to see a reduction, obviously, in natural gas. That means that there is a high probability that we would be turning more to dirty coal. So we turn away from clean natural gas to dirty coal, and we will see Huntly open a heck of a lot more often and a heck of a lot longer than we projected to—which is not helping climate change, is not helping this country get cleaner and greener, and, in fact, is likely to be detrimental for the world’s emissions, which are what we should be concerned about overall.

It is quite a simple argument that even, I think, the Labour members that are shouting out should grasp. These are real people, with real jobs, that are making a real difference to New Zealand, and they deserve respect and to have a Prime Minister and Minister that front up to them and explain the current stance on their livelihoods and on why the risks that they are taking are not worth it, and, actually, are not worthy of the sort of respect that I think the Minister should be showing them.

This is ill-thought-out. It is actually the kind of leadership that we see when a Prime Minister was, quite frankly, scrambling over the Labour summer camp issue and had to go out on the forecourt to try and change the rhetoric that was being used and the words used at that time. They fronted up to Greenpeace, to a few supporters, and then felt they had to try and find what they think here is actually a compromise position—and it’s pretty weak. Well, the weak argument is actually real jobs for real people and making a difference in this country, and it’s something that Labour care little about and isn’t making a difference in.

So this is where we have New Zealand First, which talks about the regions so often and how important they are. Yet those predominantly 11,720 jobs that are created by natural gas are being shut down because of their agreement with Labour and the Greens, who have got an ill-thought-out policy, made on the hoof, because they were worried about what was in the media that week.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, that very short offering from the member that got an urgent debate and couldn’t make full time, Paula Bennett, could be no greater example of a Government that is out of tune [Interruption]—of an Opposition that is out of tune with what this country needs.

Now, I would actually like to talk the member that has just taken her seat through what has actually happened today, because what we see on the Opposition bench seems to be a complete lack of understanding. Today, what we announced was that Block Offer 2018 would be restricted to onshore Taranaki only. Furthermore, the Prime Minister made an announcement that we would not be offering further offshore acreage in this country. And that is a sign of a Government that has the courage to raise its eyes above the three-year political cycle and stand up and show the leadership that this country lacked for the nine long years that those members opposite were in Government.

Today, we have had the Leader of the Opposition say that he will reverse this decision if he gets back into Government. This is simply irresponsible. This sets communities up for a fall, and is not something that we on this side of the House are willing to do. We are not willing to put communities in Taranaki, or anywhere else in this country, through what mining communities in England went through in the 1980s because the coal mines were closed down overnight and no one had had the foresight to plan for what was going to happen to those communities. I am not willing to put more people in this country through what we went through with rapid changes in the 1980s.

We have an opportunity in front of us to show that leadership, to ensure a smooth transition to the kind of future that we will be facing. We have two choices. The Opposition choose to bury their heads in the sand; we choose to face the future, show leadership, and implement a plan. Furthermore, what the Leader of the Opposition showed today is that he has absolutely no plan to meet the Paris targets that a Government that he was part of signed up to. If you’re not going to do this, how are you going to meet New Zealand’s international obligations—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need to.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Sorry—well, actually we all do, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I take your point. What would the plan be to meet our international obligations? Rather than headlines that we got from the proponent of the debate, I’d like to have a serious discussion in this House about that. What is the plan? When those members opposite were in Government, they had no plan to reach our international climate commitments bar costing us a whole lot of money by trading in international units. We have a plan on this side of the House to actually cut our emissions and to be able to do it that way.

And I’d like to point out that when Simon Bridges became the Leader of the Opposition he staked his claim that he was moving National into the centre on the environment. Well, he failed at the first hurdle. He failed to show leadership. He harked back to the past and showed that he has no ability to lift his eyes above the three-year horizon and show the kind of leadership that Jacinda Ardern and this Government are showing for our communities in this country.

We had the crocodile tears from the deputy leader of the National Party about how she is gutted for small businesses, she is gutted for communities, and she is gutted for the jobs that are winding down. I’ll tell you what keeps me awake at night, and that is that if we fail to plan for those very communities, we will have workers in those communities in 20 and 30 years’ time that will be facing a desolate future. Those shop owners, those plumbers, those small-business owners—they rely on there being a vibrant regional economy in those areas, and that is exactly what this Government is committed to investing in. Only on Friday, we saw Shane Jones visit Taranaki and start the Taranaki transition plan with an investment in feasibility studies on alternative industries. That is what responsible Government in this area looks like. It is that willingness to think ahead and have that kind of courage and not melt at the first opportunity like the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, did today.

One of the things that I also thought that was very interesting was that the member that has taken her seat used to be our climate change Minister, and to show the lack of understanding around this issue was, quite frankly, alarming. She told us that she’d looked at the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand website and that there was 11 years of supply there. That is right, Ms Bennett. We currently have consented for drilling somewhere between seven and 11 years of gas in this country. But what we also have is 100,000 kilometres off the coast of New Zealand consented for exploration. That is roughly the size of the North Island. The North Island is 113,000 square kilometres. We already have that much acreage off our coast held in exploration permits. We are told that one of these prospect fields, these exploration fields alone, the Barque prospect, has 11 trillion cubic feet of gas, by some estimates.

Chris Bishop: Let’s go find it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Now, let’s be really clear—Mr Bishop says, “Let’s go find it.” Well, all the holders of that exploration permit need to do is put in a mining application and they will be able to proceed. That is the whole point of what has happened today. The current exploration permits will be honoured. This is where the Opposition fails to understand what is required for the future. If an exploration permit currently exists, it still exists in the same way it did last week. The holder of that permit has the ability to transfer that exploration right into a mining right if it can fulfil the criteria that is set out under the Crown Minerals Act. Nothing has changed. There are 100,000 kilometres off our shores where these rights exist. So I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and realise that, actually, this is what a real plan for the future looks like.

We currently have 31 live petroleum exploration permits. We also have 22 of these offshore. This is more than enough for us to be able to enter into our security of supply. Now, I’ve also heard some particular hyperbole from the Opposition today around the fact that the lights are going to go out. Well, Madam Speaker, I would put to you that if that is the case, that was a failure of leadership by the previous Government over the last nine years, because any exploration permit that would come about as a result of Block Offer 2018 will not be available for drilling or mining rights until somewhere between 2040 and 2045.

Chris Bishop: Oh, that’s not true.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is the kind of time frame that we are talking about. I’m being told that’s not true. Do the math—at the very earliest maybe 2035. But this is the long-term range we think about in terms of these rights. If there is a threat to our security of supply, it’s because the previous Government failed to plan for it. But let’s be very clear [Voice strains]—sorry, I have the flu—we do not have a threat to our security of supply. Furthermore, this is a responsible Government that has a plan to put in place the first road map that we have around our energy future to renewables.

We have a target: by 2035 to be at 100 percent renewables. We will chart that out. Of course security of supply is one of the considerations that I had to consider when making this decision today. It’s one of the most serious considerations that has to be considered, along with affordability and the sustainability of the energy system. These are the things we must consider. We know that by 2035, in a normal hydrological year we can be at 100 percent renewable. Being at 100 percent renewable in a normal hydrological year doesn’t actually discount the fact that you will need to peak, and we will still have gas on tap at that point, because the current permits that we have in play for mining, let alone exploration, go through to 2046. There is no threat to security of supply here. I think the National Party need to show some leadership in this area and stop scaremongering around this. There are many things for us to consider.

The other argument that the former climate change Minister Paula Bennett put up was the bogus, discredited argument around carbon leakage that if we cut off gas in New Zealand, we’re just creating emissions in other parts of the world. That is, simply, incorrect. That is not the way it works. The gas that we produce in New Zealand is not exported; it is used domestically. We have renewable options other than gas to use in this country. In order for us to be able to export gas, we would need to build liquefied natural gas facilities.

Now, Chevron have just made an investment in Australia to be able to do just that—$46 billion worth of investment went into that plant. I do not see that level of infrastructural investment going in here. The only way in which we—

Hon David Parker: How much renewable would that buy?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Exactly—how much renewable would that buy? But if we have a look at the only way that our gas can be transformed into a form of energy and exported, it is through processing into methanol, which Methanex does. Now, the calculations I have around the world methanol supply that is produced for energy use here in New Zealand is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 percent of world methanol production. This is not going to make a huge dent in global emissions.

The other problem with the carbon leakage argument that the deputy leader of the National Party put up is that it assumes the rest of the world is standing as still as the National Party is on the issue of climate change. The rest of the world is changing. I think the Opposition should open their eyes and have a look around and see that the world is changing and that people are taking action. That is exactly what we have done on this side of the House. We are three parties that form this Government, that share a common vision of the need to plan for our future—the plan not to leave our communities laid by the wayside, to not leave them out there to dry. We know threats are coming. We will not stand by and wilfully ignore them like the Opposition is prepared to do. New Zealand First is committed to the regions and to the job creation in those regions. To ignore this problem would be kicking the can down the road and leaving those regions exposed in 30 and 40 years’ time. That is not something that we are willing to do.

We are joined, obviously, also, by the Green Party, who have long fought hard on this issue of offshore oil and gas exploration. Together, we come together to form a Government that has New Zealand’s best interests at heart, that is planning for its future. Instead, what we saw from the Opposition is them failing at the first hurdle when they say that they’re going to move to the centre on environmental matters. Instead, they retreat into outmoded, old-fashioned, populist thought that doesn’t actually imagine a future in the 21st century. They are locked in the 20th century with no view to the future, no plan for it, unlike us on this side of the House, that are absolutely committed to making sure that we have just transitions where industry, our communities, and workers are looked after and that we are not leaving them on the wayside. It is not the crocodile tears of the deputy leader of the National Party, who says she worries about the plumber and the shopkeeper and the small-business owner. They are abandoning them if they fail to plan for the future, and that is not something that we are prepared to do.

I am proud to be part of a Government that today announced a real plan for that future, one where we can make sure that we invest in people and regions to ensure they have a positive future and not one where they are left by the wayside because someone failed to plan. Thank you very much.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): It’s a pleasure to stand and make a contribution, which will consume the entire 10 minutes, unlike the deputy leader of the National Party, who, having called for a snap debate, both ran out of things to say and was in need of gas herself. Today is a historic day because there’s been a clear line of sight as to what happens when three parties come together for a common purpose.

Now there will be those who seek to make mischief, but let’s go to the depth of this purpose. We have inherited a set of obligations signed up to by the current deputy leader of the National Party and signed up to by the former Prime Minister Mr John Key, who thoroughly enjoyed, by all accounts, swanning around the world, going to major events, and talking up the credentials, environmentally, of New Zealand, but on coming home, however, never once confronted the stakeholders, the power brokers, that lie beyond what we see today of the National Party.

So, with our negotiating skill and ability to navigate the challenges of MMP politics, we’ve placed a stake on the political and geopolitical landscape. What have we done? On my side of the Government, we ensured that those parties who already hold enforceable rights—statutory entitlements—do not lose them. We have ensured that the investors, the planners, and the strategists behind the current statutory rights holders can enjoy clear air.

Now, in addition to that, as a consequence of the advocacy of the co-leader of the Green Party and also the leadership shown by our energy Minister and the passion shown by our Prime Minister, we have given a clear sense of the direction of travel that this Government seeks to take. It is enabling us, with utter clarity, to share with New Zealanders that we are not climate change deniers. I guarantee you, the other side of the House will soon stand up and they will prove, as a consequence of their rhetoric, that they might like going to these international conventions—hobnobbing—but their words are hollow, their actions are non-existent, and a number of them are going to be shown up as having no practical response.

Paula Bennett received proposals and trotted around the countryside promising to deliver pragmatic outcomes when she had a responsibility in this broad climate change area. Within one month, this Government—this Government—had allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to actually roll out a programme, supported, I would say, by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, that said the best way in the short term to enable Kiwis to cope with the impost of climate change as a consequence of that side of the House signing up to these obligations was to plant one billion trees. One billion trees—a vision shared by my Labour colleagues, the Green leaders, and, obviously, my own leader.

That’s the difference. We’re not just spouting words; we are going to change the political economy of our country. We are going to change it as a consequence of redirecting capital into those areas that generate high-paying jobs, those areas that generate durable jobs, and those areas that don’t create businesses where the quality of water, the quality of air, and, indeed, the quality of life is a second consideration. That is what lies at the essence of our response today to the challenges as to how does a modern Government deal with an existential issue such as climate change.

This is not about pitting young against old. I’m a grandfather. I love the prospect—

Hon Ruth Dyson: What?

Hon SHANE JONES: —of my mokopunas—I know, I know. Despite various facial countenances—you may not believe that I am 58, but I can assure you I am a virile 58-year-old. However, more on that later—more on that later. [Interruption] “Too much detail.”, my bald-headed friend Ron Mark sitting in front of me says.

But I want to come back to the practical things that we’re going to do. Let’s just walk them through. You see, there is a counter-narrative on the other side of the House. They don’t want us to tidy up the quality of water. They don’t want us to take any robust steps to address our climate change obligations. They don’t want us to move towards a better, more efficient, less polluting transport fleet. They don’t want us to actually take changes that stop the next generation—or, as I said, my mokopunas—being imperilled as a consequence of massive climate change forces.

What do we hear? We hear scaremongering about coal whilst the very leaders that they purport to represent from the dairy sector are privately telling us that we’re not going fast enough. They’re coming into our offices and saying, “We salute your boldness. Let’s join forces. The nation needs a plan. The nation needs a strategy.” Why? Why do they say that? Because they know this is no longer the case under the last crowd, where they promised that the best way to turn the fortunes of New Zealand around was to expand output, and to hell with the environment. We’re not going to do that. We’re willing to be measured and we’re willing to be challenged in 2020—

Todd Muller: You will be.

Hon SHANE JONES: —when the next election comes. Oh, I’ve just heard from the Ken Barlow of New Zealand politics—the forgettable actor parading around as the climate change spokesman for the other side of the House. He is a man who tells the media he’s going to bring us together under the rubric of climate change; a man who has the first opportunity to join forces with the co-leader of the Green Party, the energy Minister, and our own Prime Minister. I guarantee you he will turn his back. He will turn his back because they are afraid to confront the stakeholders who lie behind them—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon SHANE JONES: —and who pull their strings. They—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Now that is transgressing the Standing Orders.

Hon SHANE JONES: I withdraw that remark, Madam Deputy Speaker. I won’t bother arguing the toss. The reality is—[Interruption] I withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES: The key point is this is a transparent demonstration of the willingness to make long-term decisions, absorb the downside of making those long-term calls, and not lose heart or not lose confidence whilst at the same time demonstrating coherence.

Hon David Parker: Investing for the future.

Hon SHANE JONES: That is the essence of MMP politics. Well, naturally the “Darling of the Regions” will continue to invest in the future—sorry, the first citizen, I should say—and I might be pilloried as a consequence in some corners on the other side of the House about the robust decision we took today. But that’s what leadership and being a part of a bold team is about.

Don’t consign these problematic decisions to the mokopunas and the next generation. We’re setting a long-term direction but we’re securing the rights of people who go to work today, go to work next week, go to work next year, and go to work in 2020. A host of the people on the other side of the House will be going to different work in 2020, of that I can assure you.

So, yes, I am happy that our leaders will be going to Taranaki, but the Taranaki business community themselves know they’ve got to go through a transition. The engineers that people are fearful might lose their jobs: once our infrastructure programme opens up and once we actually get along and build a host of infrastructure services to deal with water degradation—a further bequeathment from the other side of the House to us—we will need every engineer in the country. And I tell you what, when we absorb the slack resources that, time to time, come from other sectors of the economy, we will ensure they’re adequately trained. We will ensure that those seeking a vocational form of training have the opportunity in the transition economy. I stand with pride today as a champion of the regions to give them heart that this message has no short-term downside and much long-term upside.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): There is no sadder member of Parliament today than the Hon Shane Jones. We heard him just tell us how happy he is, and he couldn’t even crack a smile. He couldn’t even crack a smile because he knows—

Hon David Parker: I bet it’s not Botox.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Ha, ha!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —he let down the people who put faith in him and in his leader to at least keep some semblance of sense with the Labour-led Government. Actually, they have been deeply disappointed. David Parker might find it very funny that people will lose their jobs in Taranaki and elsewhere in New Zealand—and apparently they’re all going to be trained, they say, in engineering. Well, what the hell for—what the hell for? What’s this infrastructure going to be for when people won’t be there any more? Taranaki has one of the highest levels of income in the country, and they’re just taking that away. They’re saying here that Taranaki also, in the oil and gas industry, pays double what is the average wage in New Zealand. It is one of the highest-earning sectors in New Zealand, and yet this Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government wants to take that away.

Last year, I was privileged to be the Minister of Energy and Resources, and it was interesting to find that crude oil exports from New Zealand to Australia are our second-biggest single export earner to Australia and, until 2012, it was our single-biggest export earner to Australia. So it earned us, in those days, around $1.6 billion a year, and now it’s around $500 million to $600 million a year—and that’s just off the one basin that we use out of the 19 recognised basins in New Zealand. We have the most immense wealth. We could be the Norway of the Pacific. Instead, we now have a Government that’s intent on turning us into the Nauru of the Pacific—with no disrespect to Nauru, but that’s, essentially, what it is.

If we want to look at child poverty—and by goodness are we sick and tired of listening to how we’re going to end child poverty but, by goodness, we can’t actually work out what it is, we can’t define it, but we want to actually end it! You want to do that? Then actually encourage our extraction resource industries, encourage natural gas, and encourage our oil industries, because those are industries that pay well but they’re also industries that have a remarkably excellent environmental record in New Zealand.

We look at oil—yes, it’s certainly one where there’re a lot of other countries actually going after their oil, too. I don’t know that any of them do it as well or efficiently or environmentally soundly as we do in New Zealand, and yet we’re being told we can’t do that any more.

Look at natural gas. Natural gas is not just an issue of fuel; it’s an issue of energy. Natural gas accounts for around 16 to 17 percent of our energy generation. So last year, for instance, we had a very dry year when it came to our hydro lakes. That meant that for our hydro lakes, we needed a lot of extra help with that, and we couldn’t just go and buy some rain, so we had to actually use more natural gas, we used more coal.

I well remember Television New Zealand reporters asking me about this. They’d been set up by the Labour Party, I think, to ask about how we were going to have brownouts during the winter period right before the election—brownouts, we were going to have. I was confident to be able to say, “Don’t worry; we’ve got coal, we’ve got natural gas, we have geothermal, we have hydro—we have options.” And that’s why New Zealand is rated third in the world for renewable energy use—third. And who’s first—Iceland, with 400,000 people, which, with all due respect to Iceland, is the size of Christchurch. And number two is Norway—the sixth-biggest oil producer in the world.

Norway supplies gas into the UK, it supplies gas into France, and they use underwater pipelines to do so. So when I hear Dr Megan Woods wanting to think so small and miserly about things, I’d like to say to her, “Norway—population very much like us; just like us, quite a way away from other big countries, but a country with remarkable resource.” That is why Norwegians are the richest people in the world per capita, because they have a sovereign wealth fund from oil and gas—that is why. And they are able to choose what they invest in now. They are now the biggest investors in the whole of the EU—the biggest investors. That could be us, but we’re not going to be having that now, not under this Government.

I want to say to that side today, and the people of New Zealand, who actually think that we should be looking to New Zealand and New Zealand’s interests, our emissions are 0.02 percent of the world emissions. One of the ways that we can make that even better is to have more natural gas rather than coal, for instance. But we do have coal, and we will use it when we need to.

So I’d like to say to this Government in power at the moment, with their New Zealand First - Labour - Greens Government, when we have brownouts and blackouts—because we’re not in Europe; we can’t just stick a line across to another country. We can’t do what Switzerland is doing in saying they’re getting rid of their nuclear power plants—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Forty-year horizon.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —because they’re going to get their nuclear power from France—we can’t do that. We have to be self-sufficient. We have to be self-sufficient in our electricity supply. Megan Woods may well call out and say she’s happy for us to import, import, import; there’s only so much that we can import. At the moment, we import our crude oil. That is refined at the Marsden Point refinery, and we export our crude oil from Taranaki. We do that because we get a higher price for our crude oil than what is paid for what comes into New Zealand. So that is why, even though we’re a net importer of oil, we also export a significant amount, but that is not going to last for ever, from one field.

What’s going to be next on their target sheet? Are they going to go after all the extractive industries? We already know—and James Shaw is looking very, very happy at that idea. So who’s going to pay for—where are we going to get the copper, the 4 tonnes of copper, for instance, that goes into every single wind turbine? Four tonnes of copper—where’s that going to come from? Who is going to pay for the gold and the silver and the platinum and the rare earths involved in all of our mobile phones and everything else we use in modern day life? Who’s going to pay for that, and where’s it going to come from, and how can we guarantee what is happening in the environment of those countries which will, in fact, exploit their resources? So we have a country that has immense wealth. We are sitting back from this Government and saying, “Well, all we can do is what we’re doing now except less.”

During the election debates, Megan Woods and I were involved in some debates on energy and resources, and not once did she ever say, “100 percent renewables”. And you know why she didn’t? It’s because—and she explained it at the time, the same as I did—to have 100 percent renewables in a country of our demography and the length of our country would actually mean having to have a huge oversupply of hydro and every other form of renewable energy.

I well remember the hydro plants being built, the dams being built back in the 1970s. It was a terrible thing! The precursor to the Green Party, the Values Party, were the ones out campaigning against them, and here they are today championing them, but they’re still only 63 percent of our renewable energy. And so what’s going to happen for the rest of it? Are you going to build more dams? Are you going to put some more wind turbines up, with all the concrete that goes in them, all the steel that goes in them, with all the copper that goes in with them? You’re going to do that too, Mr Shaw—and your answer is yes—and who’s going to pay for that? You’re already about to destroy the steel industry. You’re already about to do that by taking away coal, which is needed to make steel, and we have now a Government that shows what happens when the toddlers are in charge of the kindergarten. It’s an absolute disgrace.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Well, as Gwendolen remarked in The Importance of Being Earnest, there are times when it ceases to be a moral duty to speak one’s mind; it becomes a pleasure. I’d like to just start by responding to some of the myths being peddled by the Hon Judith Collins, who started her contribution by talking about how New Zealand was such a small contributor—0.02 percent of global emissions. It is true that when it comes to global emissions, we are one of the small emitters, but if you add up the 96 countries in the world which each, individually, emit 1 percent or less of global emissions together, we add up to 24 percent of the total. That is 1 percent behind China and it’s 10 percent ahead of the United States.

Being small does not absolve us of responsibility, and, in fact, as an OECD country with a highly developed economy, as the emitter of the fifth-highest emissions per capita in the world, we actually have a greater responsibility because, per capita, we emit more than most. Not only that, it shows that when we act in concert with the other small countries in the world, together we can change the world, and today New Zealand showed that we are willing to be one of the leaders in the world in the global fight against catastrophic climate change. We are willing to stand up alongside France in saying that we seek to end offshore oil and gas exploration in our waters here in Aotearoa.

I’ve been fascinated, listening to the National Party contributions and reading their press releases today. You have to remember, it was the National Government, with climate change Minister Paula Bennett, who signed the Paris Agreement on behalf of New Zealand. That agreement commits every country to hit net zero emissions in the second half of this century. That is a radical proposition, particularly when you are a country like New Zealand, that has such high per-person emissions—it’s a radical proposition—and yet today, what we find out is that while they might have signed New Zealand up to that agreement, they have no intention of doing anything that would actually change things, that would actually bring down our emissions, that would actually reduce pollution.

Today, we got to see the National Party defending their mates in the big oil industry, saying, “Actually, let’s just keep this going a few decades longer, or maybe a few centuries longer. Let’s not start the transition. Let’s just keep it going. Let’s drill, baby, drill.”, because that is their instinct. It is remarkable, on one hand, to say that you are serious about climate change, to the point that you are willing to sign an international agreement saying so, and then the same people are saying, merely a year later, “Actually, no. Let’s not do that. Let’s keep going with fossil fuel emissions. Let’s allow that industry to continue as long as it wants to.” That’s a remarkable thing to say.

The other thing that I heard today is how little faith the National Party have in New Zealand innovation, in New Zealand workers, in New Zealand industry. What they are suggesting is that over the next 30 years, as we transition away from fossil fuel exploration in this country, that, somehow, will not be replaced by anything. They’re suggesting that, somehow, all economic activity is going to stop as a result of this decision. It’s remarkable. They’re saying, “No, actually, industry isn’t going to innovate. It’s not going to reinvest. It’s just going to close up shop.”, and, in fact, what they’re suggesting is it’s going to start closing up shop tomorrow, or maybe this afternoon, because there’s only 30 more years left of guaranteed activity.

I find that utterly remarkable, and I’ve got some numbers—some statistics—I wouldn’t mind sharing with them. Around the world, US$11 trillion is going to be invested in renewable electricity investment in the next 20 years—that comes from Bloomberg. In the single year of 2016-17, there were 8 million clean energy jobs created worldwide, according to the International Energy Agency. In the United States, solar jobs are being created seven times faster than the entire rest of the economy. It is the single fastest-growing sector by a factor of seven. Here in New Zealand, PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that New Zealand’s share of the global clean-energy market could be $7.5 billion to $22 billion a year if we had policies to encourage it—policies like the one we announced today.

Countries who have signed up to the Paris Agreement have actually committed—and New Zealand is one of these countries—to mobilise at least US$1 trillion worth of green investment in the next 12 years. Last year, in the renewable energy sector alone, global investment was up to $280 billion. So there is a colossal movement of capital into renewable energy, and yet Judith Collins is suggesting that because over the next 30 years we are intending to phase out fossil fuels, somehow none of that capital—literally, not a cent—will be redeployed into other, more renewable forms of energy and industry in New Zealand. That is a remarkable statement to make. It shows an utter lack of faith in capital, in industry, in innovation, in research, in science, in technology, and in New Zealand. It is an utterly faithless statement to make.

Judith Collins also suggested that New Zealand can only ever bridge the gap between what we currently generate from renewable electricity and 100 percent with coal or gas. She suggested that is literally the only form of energy available, and yet, at the same time, there are 3,281 megawatts of consented renewable electricity generation ready to be built in New Zealand. Already, it is consented and ready to be built. So if we wanted to, we are able to make the switch to renewable electricity and close the gap that our current fossil fuel reliance—that could have been built a long time ago. That number hasn’t shifted in a decade. There have been over 3,000 megawatts of energy consented and ready to go in this country that we have held off investing in and held off building because of our dependence on fossil fuel electricity generation.

Westpac bank last week estimated that acting early and managing a smooth transition could add $30 billion more to the New Zealand economy by the year 2050 than the alternative. And what National is suggesting—and suggesting by saying they’re going to turn back the fossil fuels; they’re going to actually increase fossil fuel exploration—is that, actually, we’re going to have the kind of sudden transition, as the world winds down its own fossil fuel use, and yet we’re continuing to drill and continuing to try and find markets for what is a declining market place around the world. The National Party is suggesting that, actually, we should just keep it going and then allow the kind of crash that happened in the 1980s—right. Actually, what we need to do is send a long-term signal into the market place to allow industry to invest in the future, and that’s what we have done today.

I’d like to just finish with some words. About 50 to 60 years ago, President John F Kennedy, from the United States, announced that it was going to become the mission of that country to put a man on the moon and bring him safely back home within 10 years. At the time that he made that commitment, they actually didn’t have the technology to get there. They didn’t have the metallurgy. They didn’t have the rocket fuel. They didn’t have the guidance systems or the computing systems. None of that existed. They knew that they needed it, but they were prepared to invest, and invest they did. What he said at Rice University in Texas, when he announced that—he said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win”. And we can—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an angry sensation I feel today when we’ve had this policy announced, because it is more evidence of this Government thoughtlessly knocking out the foundations of New Zealand’s economic success that we’ve enjoyed over these past few years. This is an economy that has been going well and delivering jobs for New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders—having given them the opportunity to get ahead in their own lives. And day after day, week after week, we are seeing this Government—I would say systematically, but it’s not systematic; it’s thoughtless—knocking out the foundations of that economic success.

I look across the hall to David Parker, the Minister for Economic Development, and I remember him in the debate in the Epsom electorate, where he would stand up and he would say, “New Zealand is a rich country. We’re one of the richest countries in the history of the world. We can afford to do X and Y, because we are a rich country.”—never a thought to the fact that it is not actually written in stone that New Zealand is a rich country and that every day we have to go out and earn it in a tough world, and earn our living.

One of the ways that we may earn our living in this country is in the oil and gas sector, and we have done that for a number of years. That is a sector that generates $1.5 billion of export revenue a year. Forty-two percent of the profits of the broader sector are brought back to New Zealand, and it creates a fuel that is used by 280,000-odd industrial users and private users and residential users to cook their food and to warm themselves with a heater, and it creates an enormous amount of jobs in the New Zealand economy—some estimates of 7,000 full-time jobs in Taranaki; the rest are mainly in Wellington and in Auckland. And we heard Mr Jones talking about the fact that his focus is shifting the economy to areas where there are higher-paying jobs. Well, this is one of the areas where there are higher-paying jobs in New Zealand. The average income is $105,000—twice the New Zealand average—and it is one of the highest paying areas.

So here we are. We’re taking this important part of the economy and saying that, well, we’re not going to have any further exploration. I’ve been trying to find how many other countries in the world have taken that step. I’ve found four so far: France, which is stopping it 40 years from today, Belize, Costa Rica, and Ireland. New Zealand, I understand, will be the fifth.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s what’s called leadership.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, you could call it leadership, or you could call it recklessness with the New Zealand economy. It’s only jobs—it’s only people’s livelihoods that we’re talking about here!

Hon Grant Robertson: Have you got no ambition?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We have ambition to earn a living in this country.

The Prime Minister can go and get her photo op in England next week. It will be one of the most expensive photo opportunities for this country in a very long time, because the consequences are huge. We’ve heard so many speeches saying, “Oh, it doesn’t matter. Nothing’s gonna happen for years. We’ve got decades. This decision is just sending a signal and it won’t have any impact for 11 years or two decades because there’s all this stuff.” That shows no understanding of the reality of the economy. People are right now having to decide whether to invest in this industry—whether to take their capital and risk it in further investment in the New Zealand economy, in Taranaki and in many of the other areas that they’ve had access to over the past few years. I’m not saying that tomorrow everybody’s going to disappear—of course not—but they are less likely to make future investments in this industry and there is, inevitably, a serious consequence for the opportunities in that region.

Why would you invest serious money in this sector when the Government has said there’s no future in it? They are much less likely to make investments—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It wouldn’t. That’s the point.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and it is going to have direct consequences for the livelihoods. Yes, that is indeed the point. Thank you very much. That is the point. There will be no more investment, or less investment in the sector over the next little while, and we won’t have the opportunity, so we will just knock out one of the struts of the strong New Zealand economy that we’ve enjoyed.

Then we come to Shane Jones, the so-called champion of the regions. I do feel sorry for “Matua Shane”, because his facial expressions today revealed the inner tensions of this Government. It must be dispiriting for him. He has been given $3 billion to walk around the country, to hand out cash, and to be the hero in the regions. He is going to be the hero in the regions. He’s going to give them the money and give the regions what they want, but the money that he gives no way makes up for what will be drawn out of the regions by the series of Government decisions that have been made. Today is just one of the latest. So we have this bizarre idea that going to New Plymouth and giving them $150,000 to do some studies on clean energy somehow makes up for fundamentally undermining what is one of the largest pieces of their economy. When the mayor of the local region says it’s a kick in the guts for Taranaki, I believe him more than I believe Shane Jones or Megan Woods or any of the others.

What we’re seeing is the incoherent nature of this Government, and it was very strange to hear Shane Jones talking about how this somehow demonstrated coherence. It doesn’t demonstrate coherence. It means that on one day he goes into a region, gives them a little bit of money, and says, “You should be grateful.”, and on the next day another Minister, from the Greens or Labour, comes along and says, “Oh, by the way, we’re stopping a big part of your economy.” Where’s the coherence in that? It’s been repeated in so many other ways. We’ve had Shane Jones saying, “We’re going to invest in the regions.”, and the next day Phil Twyford goes along and says, “But we’re taking a whole lot of money out for rural transport. We’re not going to build any roads of national significance any more, because we don’t like them.” Or when Shane Jones goes and says, “We’re going to invest—

SPEAKER: Order! Back to the debate.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The broader point that I was making is the incoherence of the Government’s policy, and this oil and gas decision that we’ve seen today is a prime example of the fact that they don’t have a coherent economic development strategy for this country. And we see it time and time again. The classic example is foreign investment.

Hon Member: Well, wait and see.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And yes, we’ll wait and see. We’ll be very interested to see the GDP figures and the estimates of those coming out over the next little while, to see how the New Zealand economy responds. It’s only money, of course; yes, it’s only jobs. That might not be so important, but it is important to the people that have the jobs and who need the money to pay for their children and to pay for their kids.

My colleagues have pointed out the folly, I suppose, of this decision from the environmental point of view, in the sense that it will increase the likelihood that New Zealand will have to import gas from around the world. I’ve let them make the point, but the broader point that I’m trying to make is that this is just another example of a Government that takes New Zealand’s economic prosperity for granted and is thoughtlessly knocking out the foundations of that success that we’ve enjoyed.

To the New Zealanders out there who are sort of wondering about the consequences of all this, I’d say to them to just be careful about the impact of these decisions. It’s a very easy thing, to say, “Oh well, we’ll stop looking for oil and gas.” Well, most people actually use oil and gas and will continue to for some time. It’s an industry that’s important to our economy. If you put the signal that you’ve put out today, there will inevitably be far less investment in that sector over time. It won’t just cruise along on autopilot for the next decade, like it started. It won’t just cruise along, because people who are making investment decisions will be far less likely to invest, and the consequences will be that the regions of New Zealand will go backwards as a result of this. And yet, at the same time, the Government is running around talking about being the champions of the regions, and yet the policies that they bring in are pulling in the complete opposite direction. So this is yet another example of a Government that is incoherent, both economically and morally.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Once upon a time, the National Party used to talk about being ambitious for New Zealand, being able to see a future for New Zealand where we had clean rivers, where we had clean air, and where we had good jobs that paid higher wages. Instead, what we just saw then, from Paul Goldsmith, was a 20th century party, reaching back to the 19th century to try and solve 21st century problems. That’s the failure of ambition from that member. But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised because he wasn’t even ambitious enough to try and win Epsom. So maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised about getting that from Paul Goldsmith.

Mr Speaker, I know I shouldn’t draw you into the debate, but I think you, of all people in this House, would know what happens when major change occurs in the economy and it’s not planned, and there isn’t a transition.

SPEAKER: And the member won’t draw me into the debate.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s right, and I’m not drawing you into the debate.

SPEAKER: We’re not relitigating those caucus decisions.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m glad we both agree that you’re not being drawn into the debate. In the 1980s, in New Zealand we saw what happens when we don’t manage transition and change. In this situation, we are planning the most thought-out transition for an industry that I believe New Zealand has ever seen. We are saying, to an industry that still has permits that will run into the 2030s, that we want to work with them and work with the communities that those industries work in, to manage a just transition.

Hon Member: 100,000 kilometres.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s right, 100,000 kilometres, more than 31 active exploration permits, all of which continue. They continue into tomorrow and next week and the week after in the Taranaki. Everybody will still be doing the same jobs. They will still be working in the same industries. But in 30 years’ time they won’t. In 30 years’ time, Taranaki and regions around the world that rely on fossil fuels will have had to transition. This is a responsible Government that understands we have serious obligations to our planet and to our people, and that we will support those communities. We won’t sign up to international agreements with no intention of actually doing anything to implement them, because that’s what the previous Government did. We have heard lip-service for years from the National Party, when it comes to taking serious action on climate change. Now we have a Government that is prepared to do that and to manage the transition that is required in our communities.

I want to acknowledge all three parties that make up this Government in this decision. The New Zealand First Party is indeed the champion of the region. I feel it and hear it every single day, and I can confirm that Shane Jones had his head in his hands because he realised he had forgotten yet another one of his and Dot’s anniversaries—that’s what it was. That’s what it was today, and I apologise to Dot for that straight away.

But I thank the New Zealand First Party and I thank the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for being a part of what is an important step today. We may come at this issue from different perspectives, but we share the goal that New Zealanders deserve to have high living standards and a quality of life that goes on for decades from now. It is not just our responsibility as politicians in this Parliament to think about the 24-hour news cycle; to think about how we can get a cheap hit with some voters in the provinces. It is time for politicians in this House to come together and face up to a future where we must move to a low-carbon economy where we can create high-paying jobs by being clever, by using our innovation, and by planning right now.

I believe this is a generational moment, and I see Mr Chris Bishop poised to stand up and take the next call. I would have thought, of all people in the National Party, he would get that future generations want what has happened today to happen. They want a Government that is prepared to look ahead, to plan, and to think about them and their children and their grandchildren still having the standards of living that they aspire to today.

Simon Bridges has fallen at the first hurdle today. He said that he wanted an Opposition that would be more green, that would be more interested in environmental issues. He had the opportunity today to join with a Government that has a commitment to sustainability and he fell at the first hurdle. He didn’t even get up today and say he would join in making sure New Zealand makes a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

I am proud of what this Government has done today. I am proud of the work of the Prime Minister, who has made good on her commitment that when her nuclear-free moment came, she would show leadership. She has done that. This Government is proud that we are moving in a just way to a low-carbon economy.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): There’s a very important question facing this House this afternoon: is it worth sacrificing our fourth-largest export earner, thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars of royalties and taxes to give the Prime Minister a talking point for her town hall meeting with Justin Trudeau? That’s what this is all about. This is all about politics. It’s not about good public policy for New Zealand, it’s not about meeting our Kyoto or Paris obligations, it’s not about helping the environment, and it most certainly is not about helping the economy.

Isn’t it interesting how the Prime Minister and her bevy of Minister delivered this? Was it in Taranaki, the region that will be most affected by the economically ruinous policy? No; it was at the Beehive theatrette and then up at Victoria University with crowds of adoring fans behind her. No guts to go to Taranaki and talk—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I’ll deal with it. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

CHRIS BISHOP: I withdraw and apologise. The Prime Minister should have gone to Taranaki and gone to New Plymouth. She says that she’s going as soon as she gets back from the United Kingdom. Well, how about not going to the United Kingdom and going to New Plymouth and standing and looking the people of Taranaki in the eye and saying, “This is a decision we’re taking.”? How about talking to the industry before the decision was made—talking to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand and talking to the players involved in the industry? What an appalling, outrageous process this Government has decided to follow as they cut the knees off one of our most successful export industries.

Shane Jones, “Matua Jones”, was standing there today with all of his facial contortions, and he knows what I’m saying is right. As he was standing there—the first captain or the first leader, or whatever—

Rt Hon David Carter: First citizen.

CHRIS BISHOP: First citizen—whatever grand title the matua wants to give himself today about the regions. He knows that this is a hammer blow for Taranaki and a hammer blow for other regions that want to develop their petroleum resources.

As Judith Collins pointed out, there are 19 petroleum basins in New Zealand. We use one of them, and the one that we use is the most wealthiest part of the country. They pay double the average salary of every other region, and there are 7,000 jobs there dedicated to oil and gas and all of those downstream jobs. Can you imagine what it would be like if we developed another petroleum basin?

Megan Woods, in a bit of cognitive dissonance, talked in her speech about how there’s hundreds of thousands of kilometres of oil and gas to be explored. But which international oil company or petroleum company is going to come down here in the next few years, far away from supply lines and far away from the rest of the world, and spend their tens of millions of dollars when James Shaw and Chlöe Swarbrick and Golriz Ghahraman and the Greens are going around the world lauding this great policy about how we’re cutting off oil and gas? No international investor is going to spend the money and spend the time. It’s hard enough to get them down here to start with, because we’re so far away and we’re known as a wildcat destination in the oil and gas game. Well, no one’s going to come down here now.

All of their exhortations about how there’ll still be jobs and we’re not cutting off the existing permits and don’t worry about it—all of that is hollow. The headlines the Prime Minister is generating in the Financial Times and The Guardian, and all of the headlines she’ll get when she goes to the United Kingdom about how it’s the nuclear-free moment and all of these silly phrases—all of these headlines she gets are exactly what she wants, but the damage to New Zealand is incalculable. The damage will be in that international investor interest drying up.

This is economic vandalism. This is our fourth-largest export earner—thousands of jobs. This is economic vandalism. The worst thing is that it is economic vandalism for no environmental gain. Stopping the export of oil from New Zealand does not mean that the countries we export it to stop using oil; they just don’t buy it from New Zealand. They don’t stop burning oil, they just don’t burn ours, and they don’t pay the money to us that comes back to the Government through royalties and taxes.

It doesn’t help us meet our Paris obligations. Stopping the export of oil does not help us meet our Paris obligations. We don’t burn the oil. We don’t accumulate the cost. The companies in countries that buy it do. What this does do is stop New Zealand making our contribution on the world stage of gas as a transition fuel. I hope in other debates in this House I’ll get a chance to talk about this. This is economic vandalism of the worst order.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I respond, firstly, to a couple of points the last speaker, Chris Bishop, made. He accused Labour Party politicians of not having the fortitude to go to Taranaki—Andrew Little is there tonight at a public meeting.

Mr Bishop accused the Prime Minister of going on some flight of fancy into the United Kingdom and then Europe in her forthcoming trip—the focus of that trip is to try and unlock the start of trade negotiations with both the United Kingdom and the European Union. The European Union negotiation has not even started—the prior Government could not get it across the start line. The Prime Minister, whilst meeting with the President of France, Mr Macron, and with Angela Merkel, is trying to advance New Zealand’s trade interests and start that process. It is not some fluffy trip for photo opportunities as the last speaker would say.

The other point that the National Party members seem to forget is that their own leader says that New Zealand needs to start a transition away from burning fossil fuels and producing fossil fuels. He said it in an interview on The Nation, which was his first interview post his election to the position of leader of the National Party. He said, “We must start a transition.” And the first time he gets an opportunity to stand up as the leader of the National Party and actually implement that by starting a transition he fails—he says we ought not to start a transition. He says we ought to just put our head down and continue the way we have been going for years.

This is a transition that will take many decades. As other speakers have already said, there are many thousands of kilometres—indeed, 100,000 square kilometres—of offshore prospects already licensed for prospecting in New Zealand. None of them stops. I’ve heard comments to the contrary from members of the Opposition, so I want to read today from one of the notifications to the New Zealand stock exchange from one of New Zealand’s major oil and gas producers, and explorers made since the announcement was made by the Government this morning, and I quote—this is from New Zealand Oil and Gas: “The government’s announcement will not have any immediate impact on the operations or financial position of the company. Potentially transformational New Zealand Oil & Gas exploration prospects in the Canterbury and Great South Basins are unaffected by today’s announcement and the company is continuing to market these world-class prospects.” It’s hard to reconcile that with the rhetoric that we’ve heard from the National Party this afternoon.

Time and again, in my experience in this House—and I’ve been here for 16 years—I’ve heard these irreconcilable statements from the National Party about how we need to do things environmentally but we mustn’t do this. I’ve got before me a video clip that was self-titled by the Hon Gerry Brownlee when he was the Opposition spokesperson for energy and I was the Minister of Energy. He put up this video newsletter—which, to his eternal shame, lasts, on YouTube. You just need to google “sexy coal Brownlee” and you will find it. This is what he put up. [Holds still image from video] He put up this—this is the first part of his video blog. It says, “Chapter one. Sexy Coal”. That was what he labelled it.

Now, at that time, the last Labour Government—and I was the Minister of Energy at the time—wanted to do something about cleaning up our electricity sector. Renewable electricity had dropped to 64 percent of generation and was going down, and we wanted it to go up. So we had a large number of measures. We invested in the grid, we priced carbon, we told the State-owned enterprises to invest in renewables, we eased consenting for renewables, and we set New Zealand on the path for 90 percent renewables by 2025. Indeed, we’re actually now up at 84 percent, in a recent quarter.

Chris Bishop: That’s right. That was us.

Tim van de Molen: Great work from our last Government.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually, that’s an interesting question. So what did National say? Well, they said it was impossible, and they said the country would face an energy gap that they showed on that graph there. [Holds up graph] And the energy gap was going to be filled with what? Ah, it was going to be, according to Gerry Brownlee, filled with coal. He thought we would need coal. He said the lights would go out if we didn’t produce coal. He said—in fact, he promised—that they would do away with the target of 90 percent renewables by 2025, and he got into power and he started to do that. Then he told New Zealanders, “Oh, look, in order to achieve that, we’re going to need to mine a bit of coal in the national parks.”, and tens of thousands of New Zealanders marched against him in the streets. And what happened? Mr Brownlee was removed from the portfolio of energy and it was given to Hekia Parata, and Hekia Parata had the good sense to keep the 90 percent target and keep the settings that the prior Labour Government had set. And now we’re just about at 90 percent renewables.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member now to actually get back to the current decision.

Hon DAVID PARKER: And now we’re at 90 percent renewables without having to use thermal fuels.

Now, the next fuel, they say, that is necessary for us to meet our renewable and our energy targets is gas. They’re just wrong. Yes, in the next decade or two we will need some gas. Some of it will go to industrial heat. Decreasing quantities of it will go to electricity. Some of it will be used for the production of methanol. But we are in a transition away from fossil fuels to renewables.

If you want to follow the rest of it, there was some great pillorying of Gerry Brownlee by Lucy Lawless and others. That’s the other video you’ll turn up. But it shows that if you actually show some vision, if you create some investment certainty for those that are investing their private capital in New Zealand, they will follow the money, they will follow the signal, and you will get alignment of economic outcome with environmental outcome as we already have in electricity. Now the new Government is plotting the course to go from 90 percent renewable electricity to 100 percent, and we don’t need gas to do it. And indeed, if you were using gas, you wouldn’t get there.

The next thing I would point out is that they say Fonterra needs gas as a bridging fuel to go from coal for the milk dehydration in the South Island to renewables eventually. Well, maybe they do. Maybe they’ll get that out of that New Zealand Oil and Gas prospect. I suspect history will show they won’t need that. I think that they will go direct from coal to renewables. In fact, I’ve had one of the CEOs of the largest generators in New Zealand saying they think that’s the way it’s going to go, because the cost of wind power is coming down. They don’t think we’ll need gas to get Fonterra off coal. They think they’ll go direct to renewables. This is how a transition works.

Lastly, in the time I’ve got available, I want to talk about how important it is that you invest in the right things for the future, not the wrong things for the future. If you invest in the wrong things for the future, you waste your capital because you create a stranded asset risk. If you over-invest in gas and oil in the next few years in New Zealand, you risk wasting that money before the end of the economic life of those assets.

The Japanese are down here already, about to experiment on the production of hydrogen, to produce hydrogen or the transportable form of hydrogen, which is ammonia, in order to export fuel from renewable sources. Why? Why are they coming to New Zealand? Because they think that New Zealand may be the lowest-cost source in the world of clean, transportable energy sources from renewable sources. They’re not coming for our gas or our coal; they’re coming because they think we’ve got a renewables future. It is very possible that one of New Zealand’s points of comparative advantage in the world in the future is to use our renewables to produce alternative fuels like hydrogen, which we could export. Did you hear a word of that from the National Party? No, those Luddites have got their head down the coalmine still, and they think, well, if they pull it out of that they’ll put it down a gas hole.

We are in a transition to a clean future. It will be a just transaction. The lights will not go out. The last thing is that I won’t be lectured by Mr Goldsmith about economic prospects. When he was in Government he dropped exports from 30 percent of the economy to 27 percent of the economy, against the promise to increase them to 40 percent. That’s failure. We need new points of comparative advantage in the world to grow new exports of goods and services. Statoil’s pulling out of New Zealand; BP’s already gone; Shell’s on the way. They know that the future is not fossil fuels.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Appointments

Controller and Auditor-General

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to section 7(2) and clause 1 of Schedule 3 of the Public Audit Act 2001, the House recommend to the Governor-General that John Michael Ryan of Raumati be appointed as Controller and Auditor-General for a term not exceeding seven years, commencing on 2 July 2018.

The Controller and Auditor-General is an Officer of Parliament appointed by this House, so stands apart from the machinery of local and central government. The role is central to the maintenance of New Zealand’s reputation as a world leader in terms of integrity and transparency of our political and public life. I’m happy to endorse the appointment of John Ryan as the new holder of that office.

The selection process has been managed by the Officers of Parliament Committee. Mr Ryan was selected from an exceptionally talented field. He is currently the deputy director-general of the Ministry for Primary Industries. Previously, he’s held senior positions in both public and private sectors, including deputy chief executive of the Ministry of Justice and chief executive of the Building Industry Authority. He has a background in accounting and assurance, working in financial auditing, litigation support, acquisitions, and divestments in New Zealand and overseas.

The Auditor-General’s role is to improve the performance of, and public trust in, the public sector. John Ryan brings to the role of Controller and Auditor-General the experience and qualities necessary to achieve this. His nomination has been supported by all the parties represented in this House, and I ask the House to support this motion recommending his appointment to the Governor-General.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): Thank you for the opportunity—the rare opportunity—to speak in the House, and I speak in support of the appointment of John Ryan as our new Controller and Auditor-General.

Can I start by paying tribute to the current deputy, Greg Schollum, who has acted in capacity with both jobs for probably almost 12 months. He has delivered to this Parliament and to New Zealand outstanding service, and we owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

I was very pleased that the role certainly attracted a very high calibre of applicants with a wide variety of interests, experience, and expertise. That says a lot for New Zealand and the high regard that this Parliament and this role has in our democracy. It was interesting that, of all the candidates that were interviewed, there were some common themes: first of all, the critical importance of this role to our democracy, and, again, to echo the Leader of the House, the high regard that New Zealand is held in for its integrity and for its lack of corruption. There were a number of points made around the changing technology and expectations of skills needed in the role of the Audit Office. They all talked about taking a much more proactive way of identifying risks before they happen, and working with some of those public sectors to avoid the risks rather than just being reactive and reporting on what had gone wrong. So they were common themes across all of the applicants that were interviewed, which I found quite interesting.

But Mr Ryan has an outstanding record of work across a wide range of the public sector. He has worked in corrections; he’s worked in health, arts, culture and heritage, justice, and, more recently, the Ministry for Primary Industries. The vision of an auditor is often a person who is very dry, perhaps unexciting, focused on figures, and some would say a little boring, perhaps. So it’s quite cool, I think, to think that we have a man proposed for this role who has a different side to him and has been involved in the arts, and particularly jazz and ballet.

I am confident that this recommendation to the Governor-General will provide New Zealand with an excellent Controller and Auditor-General, to lead an outstanding team in our audit office, to maintain the essentials of our democracy: integrity, transparency, and public entities that we as parliamentarians and the whole of New Zealand can have confidence in, that will operate effectively, efficiently, and appropriately, using public funds wisely and free from corruption. I have no hesitation in recommending this man to the Governor-General.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a short contribution to congratulate John Michael Ryan of Raumati for his appointment as Controller and Auditor-General. The position of Controller and Auditor-General has been vacant since Martin Matthews’ departure in 2017. Mr Ryan has previously been Deputy Director-General of Corporate Services at the Ministry for Primary Industries. He also held the role of Executive Director of Corporate Services for the Capital and Coast, Hutt Valley, and Wairarapa District Health Boards (DHBs), during the time when I was actually fortunate enough to have been appointed by the Government of the day on to two of those DHBs and having worked on the third one of them, so I am quite familiar with Mr Ryan’s work ethics and expertise.

New Zealand First acknowledges the hard work of Greg Schollum, Deputy Controller and Auditor-General, his leadership team, and the wider Office of the Controller and Auditor-General while Parliament has carried out the lengthy and thorough process to appoint a new Auditor-General.

The Office of the Auditor-General plays a key role in auditing New Zealand’s public entities, providing independent assurance that the public entities are operating and accounting for their performance properly and appropriately. Therefore, New Zealand First wishes the incoming Controller and Auditor-General the very best in his new role, and we look forward to seeing how he makes his mark on that organisation. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the motion. New Zealand is a country which prides itself on its low international corruption rankings and its financial accountability and propriety. This is especially so in the public sphere. Our prosperity as a nation, in fact, depends upon this, and international research has shown how important the accountability and transparency of institutions is to a nation’s success.

When it comes to the tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money spent every year, the role of the Controller and Auditor-General is a keystone in the foundation of New Zealand’s future. The Green Party is happy to support John Ryan as the new Controller and Auditor-General and looks forward to strong leadership, demonstrating appropriate norms across Crown entities, and taking advantage, and also grappling with, of new technologies like artificial intelligence and big data. We’d like to acknowledge the leadership shown by deputy Greg Schollum over the last year in difficult circumstances. We are happy to support the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

The Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill represents the continued effort by the Crown to remedy the wrongs of its past actions towards Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Just to give some historical context of the claim, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are an iwi centred around Maraetai and are members of both the Tāmaki and Hauraki collectives. Their interests extend into Tāmaki-makau-rau, across Hauraki, and include coastlines, harbours, and islands in and around the Waitematā Harbour and Tīkapa Moana, which is the Māori translation for the Hauraki Gulf. Significant ancestral and cultural sites for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki include Motutapu Island, Maraetai, and the Hunua ranges. Fossilised human footprints dating from 600 years ago discovered on Motutapu demonstrate the deep and long-lasting connection between Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and the whenua.

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have suffered breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi through unfair land transactions. These land transactions during the 1830s were intended by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to foster mutually beneficial relationships with Europeans. However, the actual result, once they were implemented post-1840, was large blocks of land being sold to private purchasers and the Crown failing to protect and reserve land for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. The culmination of these breaches of Te Tiriti has meant that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have been alienated from much of their ancestral lands, which has challenged the iwi’s traditional structure and has had negative intergenerational effects on the people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

The Crown has failed to adequately address the grievances arising from its actions until now. The deed of settlement signed between the Crown and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in 2015 addresses these grievances. The proposed bill gives effect to those elements of the deed which require statute. The importance of this bill in fostering and mending relations between the Crown and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki should not be understated. Settlement negotiations were first sought in 1989. The deed of settlement for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki was signed on 7 November 2015. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have had to endure delays in the progression of this bill, and I acknowledge this has been tough and upsetting for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, so it is wonderful to now be presenting the bill for its second reading.

I’d like to extend my thanks to the Māori Affairs Committee for their work and effort in the consideration of this bill. Thirteen written submissions were received by the committee from members of the public, iwi, and council. Six submitters wished to speak to their submissions at hearings held in Auckland in February. I thank the committee for reading and listening to these submissions and for carefully considering whether these should result in any changes to this bill. After this examination and consideration, the committee have not recommended any substantive amendments to the bill.

So I’ll not take up the whole time allocated for me to speak to the bill, as I do not wish to delay its progress a moment longer. I look forward to this bill advancing towards the third reading. While no amount of redress will ever be enough to compensate for the wrongs of the past, this is a step towards acknowledgment, recognition, and reconciliation. I hope that it can allow for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to have confidence moving forward. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Ko tēnei pire nā Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. Nō reira, tōku mihi ki ngā uri o Hui Kaiwaka o Tara Te Irirangi o ngā tūpuna katoa o Ngāi Tai e noho ana koutou ki te whenua tapu, tōu whenua ātaahua hoki ki Maraetai tū mai te whare nunui mā runga o Te Marae o Umupuia. Nō reira, e koutou rā o ngā rangatira o te iwi o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, ngā mihi, ngā mihi, ngā mihi.

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. This bill is the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. Therefore, I greet the descendants of Hui Kaiwaka, of Tara Te Irirangi, of all the ancestors of Ngāi Tai who live on the sacred land, your beautiful land at Maraetai where the great house of Umupuia Marae stands. Therefore, to you the chiefs of the people of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, greetings, greetings, greetings.]

We are now at the working end of the Treaty settlement process for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I had the privilege, actually, of chairing the Māori Affairs Committee as we considered the settlement for Ngāi Tai. I also have the privilege to remain a member of that committee with the change of Government. On that note, I’d like to acknowledge our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene, for his chairmanship of our committee, and also to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has been very much at the forefront of so many of the settlements.

It was indeed a privilege to sit at the select committee hearings as we worked through the settlement with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Just to reiterate again—particularly because the previous speaker, the Hon Kelvin Davis, actually gave us very much an overview of the journey of this particular settlement—I want to, actually, just put some more context into what he was actually saying. So, first of all, yes we did—we received and considered 13 submissions, as well as hearing oral evidence from six submitters at the hearings in Tāmaki-makau-rau and also Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara.

Now, there are a number of critical features to this settlement that came up during the submission process. The first one—and it’s so often the case in Treaty settlements—is actually around overlapping claims. The overlapping claim situation did actually, obviously, arise in this particular settlement. Ngāti Wai is concerned, really, that the settlements to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki that fall within their shared area of interests may impact on Ngāti Wai discussions with the Crown at future dates.

But can I first acknowledge the shared area of interest and Ngāti Wai’s position, because, having had to deal with overlapping claims—we know them so well, even within our own iwi of Kai Tahu—I’m well aware of the concerns that arise and the impact, actually—the real impact—on actual relationships.

In this particular settlement, we actually saw that in some ways. We know that it’s never easy for the Crown to manage these in Treaty negotiations. Indeed, we often find ourselves looking at something like they call “Solomon’s choice”. But, accordingly, I think we need to take reassurance, though, from the Office of Treaty Settlements with this particular settlement, in that the agreements to amend the protocol areas could be implemented without an amendment to the bill in front of the House today. So can I also possibly suggest, humbly, that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Wai share a history of whakapapa that sees them in a really strong position to establish protocols amongst themselves that may not actually require the Crown. So instead of having the Crown being involved in trying to sort out these overlapping issues, I think it’s listening to the submitters. There is some real opportunity, I believe—and particularly because of the whakapapa links between Ngāi Tai and also Ngāti Wai—that they could perhaps work them through in that wonderful process that we have of tikaka.

The next part of it I want to come to—so we have overlapping claims, which was an issue that came up. The next one is around the commercial redress. The commercial redress—there’s been quite a bit of concern from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. We’ve had to consider a claim for damages from the Crown as a consequence of the two-year gap. So there’s been a two-year gap, actually, between the signing of the deed of settlement and then the introduction of this bill into the House in August 2017.

But what should be noted is that the value of the deferred selection procedure sale and the lease-back and the right of first refusal properties has actually exceeded the settlement quantum. In doing that, that excess there cut through the settlement since day one. So, equally, the purchase of those properties by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki—they will have a strategic and commercial advantage to the iwi that many other outsiders of Tāmaki-makau-rau will actually gaze at and look at in envy. So Ngāi Tai, then, have already shown themselves to be really astute commercial operators. We’ve actually seen that. I have no doubt that they will actually have the potential, as joint-venture partners at their doorstep, looking to assist the iwi in realising the opportunities that they had before.

No doubt the advance—because there’s been an advance, actually, on this particular settlement of $5.5 million of settlement funds, which will have been put to good commercial use, which we know, and then also delivering the financial returns that should then offset the rise in the capital values of the commercial redress properties, and that’s pretty much relatively speaking. Equally, I’m mindful of Musick Point or, as it’s called now, Te Naupata. There is actually a big opportunity there as well.

So this is an interesting offer that has been accepted by Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in its settlement package. I acknowledge that there is this thing that always comes up again in Treaty settlements, and it’s called perpetual leases. These perpetual leases, they really do present a challenge to all iwi, not just Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki but all iwi. So the perpetual leases have been the bane of many iwi, as I said—Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is no different. So I have no doubt that Ngāi Tai will have a plan as to how to work with the leaseholder to realise the full value of the opportunity they have before them. When we look then at the Homestead Drive property on Maungarei, that’s very, very challenging, as we know, but Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki acknowledges its whakawhanauka links to the Marutūāhu Collective and broadly works within them.

So in looking at that particular issue and then, also, the concerns that have been raised around the quantum itself—now, we know that in Treaty settlements, you know, looking through the history of Treaty settlements, iwi would never ever receive the full compensation that they actually should get. It’s more cents in the dollars as opposed to dollars. This particular claim, I want to also note, is no exception either. So what we need to acknowledge too is that this settlement is not the end but the beginning for this iwi, and it’s been a very, very long road. Overlapping claims—there have been commercial quantums and perpetual leases, but, in saying that, this particular claim, I hope, will be able to find its journey to the end, the committee stage to the third reading.

I wish Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki—and I see some of the rakatira actually in the gallery today. I wish you well, particularly once we can continue this journey through to the end and the final settlement that you wholeheartedly deserve as an iwi. So, on that note, I really do take pleasure in saying to Ngāi Tai: “Kia kaha, kia kaha, kia maia. Nō reira e koutou rā, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.”

[“Stay strong, stay strong, be staunch. Therefore, to all of you, greetings one and all.”]

I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too stand wholeheartedly in support of this settlement bill at its second reading. Can I acknowledge the two previous speakers, because they covered quite fully some of the background issues that we confronted as a committee. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it is indeed an honour to be able to travel the length and breadth of the country to visit territories, iwi districts, which are not familiar to me. Indeed, I’d like to acknowledge Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for the warm welcome they put on for us up there at Jet Park, near Auckland Airport.

This is another important step that we’re taking for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in their settlement. It is very important that we listen to the oral presentations especially, in addition to the written presentations that are presented to us as a committee. So I do acknowledge all of the submitters that appeared before us, in particular, obviously Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and the good work that they’ve achieved right throughout their settlement process. I do acknowledge, though, that not everyone is entirely happy with every little aspect of these settlements, but I think that that is a common occurrence throughout every settlement that is settled right throughout the country. I do acknowledge that at least this was a good opportunity for them to present their concerns.

Just picking up on perhaps the big issue that we confronted as a committee, and that was the overlapping claims, which have been touched on by Tutehounuku, and I acknowledge Ngāti Wai, who also attended our meeting up there in Auckland to present, very strongly, their views. I guess Crown policy around how the Crown is dealing with these overlapping interests is really called into question, but it’s not really reflective of the actual individual iwi that are involved. What we have here—and it’s a fact of life with every settlement—is that there are going to be overlapping interests and there will be shared areas of interest among iwi. Maybe it’s just two iwi, maybe it could be a multitude of iwi. So that is a fact of life. That is an issue or a matter that the Crown has to deal with.

Now, ideally, these matters in an ideal world would be dealt with by mutual agreement between the various iwi. I know that attempts were made and discussions were had between Ngāti Wai and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki around Ngāti Wai’s concerns that their area of interest and the granting of protocols and other instruments under the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki settlement were included within Ngāti Wai’s tribal domain. Although those discussions didn’t actually end up in an agreement, I think it actually laid a good groundwork for the future, because it’s one thing to be able to finalise and enact these settlements but what these merely are are just a means by which iwi can be recapitalised and can re-emerge and interact with each other.

So these interactions between iwi must continue. They must continue into the future. It’s inevitable. They’re all part of the communities that they each belong to. So I’m sure that those conversations will continue to evolve and develop and take place right across Tāmaki, because if you look at Tāmaki-makau-rau—and this is one thing that is quite staggering to me, from the south, where there is one iwi to the south and eight at the top—there is a multitude of iwi. When we look at the maunga settlement, I believe there’s about 13 iwi included in that, and then you’ve got Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, which has been included. They’re also part of the Waikato-Tainui and they’ve been included through their connections to Waikato-Tainui.

They also have connections to Hauraki, and I believe there’s about 12 iwi that make up the Hauraki Collective. So there are a large number of iwi that are centred in our largest metropolitan city, in Auckland.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Can I just ask the Green member to—thank you very much.

RINO TIRIKATENE: So there are a range of iwi in Tāmaki, and what we’re doing here is just re-asserting the mana of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki through the passage of their settlement legislation, and we mustn’t forget that.

The population of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, based on the last census, came in at barely 500, and I think that, in itself, can explain the loss that has been sustained by that iwi. I’m sure by us taking these measures, such as through this settlement legislation, it is a means by which we can see the emergence of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and it was evidenced by the presentations that were given. It was very moving to hear from various whānau members of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and of the importance of them reconnecting with their marae, their ancestral landscapes, their moana, their mountains, and their whanaunga. So that was very encouraging to hear when we sat as a committee.

I just want to touch on, in my remaining time, the other issues that were raised. One in particular was around the health and safety obligations, actually. Under the settlement, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki will actually be the administering body of reserves, quite a number of reserves, throughout Auckland. I believe there are 13 in total, but 11 will be coming under the authority of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Obviously, with rights come responsibilities. Now, these are ancestral lands, but, as part of the arrangement, it wasn’t, you know, that the Crown had to give something but also impose something.

So Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki will be the administering body of those reserves, but that calls into question responsibilities that will be imposed on Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. This was a matter just to bear in mind for the future, whether it is to do with the Tūpuna Maunga reserves, which are jointly administered between Auckland Council and the maunga collective body, or whether it’s these individual properties and reserves—and I hope to go and visit and venture across them at some stage. But again, the future will mean that the iwi will be in charge of all aspects in terms of the tracks, the barriers and the like, and the health and safety obligations. So that was one thing that was brought to our attention.

Lastly, there is the matter of the homestead property—Mount Wellington or Maungarei—which is a taonga for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Yes, given the shortage of land available in Auckland, a portion of that site has been set aside for other settlements. There is also the issue of a Glasgow lease on a golf course, which was also part of that. A significant portion of the property, though, will be going to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and I do note again the issues raised by having to deal with the vexed issue of the Glasgow leases and the actual injustices that they inflict on the parties. But, aside from that, I have enjoyed working on this bill with our committee members, and I do support this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

JO HAYES (National): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on the second reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. Firstly, I want to send a mihi out to those from the iwi that are sitting up there, ngā rangatira o te iwi o Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki: nau mai, haere mai. It’s really good to have you in the House, for you to take the time to be here to listen to this: our contributions today. I want to thank you, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, for your patience in this whole process. I can assure you that the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter and brighter, and the conclusion is really not very far away for you to have the bill receive its Royal assent.

I want to also acknowledge Rino Tirikatene, the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, for his leadership in getting us to this place and chairing the submissions process. As well, I also want to recognise our previous chair, Nuk Korako, from the select committee, as well as the Hon Chris Finlayson, who started this whole process in 2016.

Much of the discussions that have happened previously with the other three speakers have covered a lot of ground, and I just want to take some time out to add a little bit more of some of the information. As you heard from the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations, the Hon Kelvin Davis, in his contribution, once we went through the submission process and the report process the bill came back with relatively little change to it, which was good for the committee, and it actually lessened any further stress for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

But one of the areas was the deeds of recognition, and these were covering five key areas: the Mataitai Forest Conservation Area, the Mātaitai Scenic Reserve, the Papa Turoa Scenic Reserve, the Stony Batter Historic Reserve, and the Whakatiri Scenic Reserve. So these are areas that require the Crown to consult with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to have a special association with those sites or places.

The other areas which have been covered off have been the place name changes, and also some areas around relationship agreements between the Minister of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment, and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. I think that is a really important point in all of our Treaty bills—that iwi have that direct relationship with both of those ministries and Ministers to be able to help to co-manage a lot of the reserves, as outlined by the previous speaker.

I just want to cover a little bit around the deferred selection properties. These are some of the properties that Ngāi Tai have the opportunity to purchase, and one of them was actually outlined by the previous speaker—the golf club—as part of the Glasgow leases, but it’s working through that. The other areas whereby Ngāi Tai will have the opportunity to purchase after a specific period of time post-settlement are the Macleans College site, which is 13 hectares, which is leased back to the Crown; the Glen Innes Police Station, which is another lease back to the Crown; the Manukau area community probation centre; and, of course, the golf club at Musick Point, the Howick Golf Club, which is 37.3 hectares.

There are so many areas within this bill whereby Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki will be able to exercise its tino rangatiratanga through this bill and lay claim to those lands that were taken from them all those years ago. It’s like every other bill, as I stand up here and say that, you know, the money is not as much as what people may think it should be. It should be more, but at the end of the day, it’s actually what you get back and what you do with that money that actually counts. It is about giving back to the iwi and trying to right the wrongs. We will never get right back to the original days of when the land was stolen, but these are first good steps forward, and I am very pleased and happy to commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi he tika me mihi ki a koutou Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki ngā mihi ki a kōrua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā; hōnore nui ki te tū i mua i a kōrua i tēnei wā. Ngā mihi, ngā mihi ki a kōrua. Haramai, nau mai.

Ki a kōrua Te Rōpū Nāhinara, ngā mihi ki a kōrua mō tō mahi i ngā wā o mua ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa, ngā mihi, ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa; me koe hoki, Rino, ngā mihi ki a koe; me tika ki te mihi ki Te Minita i ngā wā o mua, Chris Finlayson i tēnei wā. Nō reira koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, it is only right to greet those of you from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, I greet you two who have come here and honour us with your presence; I am honoured to stand before you both at this time. Greetings, greetings, welcome, welcome.

To both of you from the National Party, I acknowledge the work that you have already done to advance this matter, well done to you my friend, and to you Rino, greetings to you, and it is appropriate to acknowledge at this time the former Minister, Chris Finlayson. Therefore, greetings, greetings, greetings to one and all.]

It’s always a pleasure to take calls on these types of bills. So I need to start by just acknowledging the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki negotiators, and I mihi to them for reaching this part of the settlement journey.

A lot of the kōrero has been said, but I think in terms of acknowledgments, too, I’d like to acknowledge, obviously, the negotiators and people who have played a part, but also in terms of our Māori radio media network, and, in particular, my own station, Radio Waatea, which played quite a part in it too, as a sort of mediator and facilitator of this kōrero. A lot of kōrero went down from National and our side in terms of the rights and wrongs of this settlement. So I absolutely mihi to our iwi station, Waatea, for facilitating much of that, and also my friend and brother Dale Husband, who’s been a kaikōrero with many people in this House.

Also today, I want to mihi to one of our matua, Apirana Mahuika, who was a strategic adviser during this kaupapa, and an uncle and whanaunga to some of us in the House. He was a man of much brilliance in mātauranga, and he gave a lot of advice to the tribe through the process. So never forget the contribution of that uncle, who was inspirational, not just to Ngāi Tai, but to many of us in Te Ao Māori. Nō reira e te pāpā, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Therefore, sir, rest in peace.]

For Ngāi Tai, the loss of communal ancestral lands had a severe impact on their traditional tribal structure. Families left landless or with uneconomic land blocks had insufficient means to support themselves. From the 1880s, Ngāi Tai increasingly left Umupuia in search of work. This dispersal of Ngāi Tai alienated many whānau and their descendants, not only from their lands but from their iwi identity. This led to the loss of customary traditions, tribal authority, and te reo me ōna tikanga o Ngāi Tai, so it’s only right and proper that we’re here today as part of the journey in terms of correcting the wrong.

It’s an opportunity for us to be reflective on what these grievances actually are rectifying. So that’s why I take heart when I hear some of the kōrero from both sides, from our former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Nuk Korako, who talked about these settlements not at all being any compensation for the past wrong, and from our current chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene.

For Ngāi Tai, the ability for them to be self-sustaining and prosperous was removed all those years ago, and had that not occurred, who knows what their future would have looked like? The loss of land that occurred had a direct impact on their financial well-being, which has impacted their choices and decision making for their own social well-being. Like most grievances, this wasn’t just a one-off event, and in this particular case, there were multiple instances of unfair land transactions. This meant Ngāi Tai, for example, had repeated moments forced upon them in their own history that has had a lasting impact.

We will never know what the economic future of Ngāi Tai would have been had these transactions not occurred, but it’s an important point to remind the House and people listening that sometimes in these settlements we get focused on what sounds like relatively large sums, but in real value terms it will never make up for what’s been lost. For many, the apology is actually more important than the financial redress. I think we all know that in the House today. You can never make up for what was lost in that respect, but acknowledging and apologising for what was wrong allows a true healing to happen within a tribe and within a hapū.

In many cases, and particularly this one, the transgressions of the past had more than just a financial impact. For Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, as in the case for most Māori, the connection to their whenua runs much deeper than any financial figures. The impact of alienating a people from their whenua can never be qualified. How do we translate that? How do we compare that to anything? The disconnect has intergenerational effects—intergenerational effects. Families are affected by that alienation and by that disconnection. So the alienation really challenges iwi and hapū to group together, to come together, to get together a plan, and the settlement asks that of the tribe, and there is much optimism with the tribe.

I ask the House to reflect on that because it brings to the table a whakataukī that we should all remember. Toitū te kupu, toitū te whenua, toitū te mana.

[Hold fast to the language, to the land, and to personal dignity.]

Translated for the House: “Hold fast to Māori culture, for without our language, without our spirit, without our land, the essence of being Māori would cease to exist.”

And that’s what alienation means. That’s what alienation means for so many tribes, and I take heart within this Labour Party, within our Labour Government, when I hear our Minister Andrew Little talk quite openly about education, about explanations in terms of our kids at school, in terms of Pākehā people in this country who don’t understand and who don’t realise the hurt, the mamae, the history that our people have gone through. So alienation can cripple you or you can recover and set up a plan for the future, and that’s what this tribe is doing in this case. So I mihi to them, I salute them, and I ask the House today to understand what Māori are going through in terms of Treaty settlements. I know we bring these settlements through the House, but it would be good if people really understood what our people are going through—the apology, the process, the history means so much.

So in closing I ask those in the House that are listening and those who are listening to put aside what you may or may not think about financial redress, and think back about the journey that Māori have been through. Think about the struggle that has occurred, the sadness of knowing that some of their own people have passed on before reaching this point.

We need to think about these things today in 2018, and that’s why, as I continually say, I salute not just this Government but the previous Government for addressing these hard issues. These are hard issues. Earlier in my lifetime, I was always worried that we would get too political about this, but I take heart that we have had Governments, both Labour and National, and Ministers, both Labour and National, who have stood up and said, “Enough is enough. History must be addressed. There must be redress.”

So for Māori people, we have a strong cultural and spiritual significance to the whenua, but, again, understand: if you’re only able to view your whenua from the fence, that can be crippling for you and for your mokopuna who are coming through. That is no longer going to be the case here. A future is going to be built, and I think our ancestors and our tīpuna will be proud of the path that is being forged today.

So, finally, I acknowledge, as I do, the mana and dignity that the people are showing, so that once again their connection and aroha to the whenua is rightly acknowledged and restored, and I mihi again to our rangatira who’ve come here today to tautoko and honour the settlement.

Tēnei te mihi ki a kōrua, koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you both, greetings to one and all.]

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill, the second reading, and add my voice to the very eloquent voices that have spoken on this bill this evening.

I find myself in the very rare occasion of listening closely to the previous speaker, Willie Jackson. It would be fair to say, on most items of policy, there is daylight between his view of the world and mine. But in the last 10 minutes, I think he has given a very impassioned and reasoned articulation as to why this House takes these settlement bills so seriously. They talk, in many ways, to our individual better angels, when we talk to these settlement bills, because we are humbled by the patience of those who have fought for so long to get this bill to this position, and we are given the power in this House to ultimately conclude, on behalf of the Crown and Parliament, some redress. But I think that the language and the perspective that every speaker has brought today—but, particularly, I mihi out to you, Willie; I thought your contribution was very powerful.

Can I acknowledge the current chair, Rino Tirikatene. I no longer sit on this committee. Unfortunately I’ve been moved. Well, unfortunately, fortunately—you do what you have to do, don’t you? I’m now on the Environment Committee, but I did enjoy the short time that I had on the Māori Affairs Committee in sitting through this process and listening and hearing the perspectives and the struggle that others have put in such eloquent terms this afternoon. You chair it well, you bring mana to the role, and it is a credit to you.

Can I also acknowledge the previous chair, my friend and colleague Nuk Korako. He was a superb chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and it talks again to his strength. When you are a chair and then the electoral fates deal a blow and you are no longer chair but you’re still asked to contribute—and he does, and he does it from a position of humbled contribution, not only from his own perspective but the wider National Party, and I just want to acknowledge that. Obviously the Ministers, Little and Finlayson—and again you heard with the previous comments that this is a remarkable scenario where the House joins as one to support these processes. It is, in a strange way, above the partisan politics that often dominates our discourse. So I just want to acknowledge that process.

Others have spoken more powerfully than me around the particular components of this settlement bill. I’m not going to go through and talk specifically about the apology or the cultural redress or the financial settlement. That’s explicit in the bill. I appreciate the previous conversations and observations that, from a financial perspective, it is nowhere near enough. But maybe, in a small way, the humble process by which particularly Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have approached this, and the way we have collectively listened, responded, and landed the bill gives the opportunity for Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki to move forward.

So I just want to acknowledge being part of it, on the National Party. I acknowledge the rangatira who have turned up and who sit listening with, no doubt, immense emotion to this discussion and debate and progression of something that is so critical for their futures. I acknowledge the specialness of being part of something like this, this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, tēnā koutou e Te Whare, ki a koutou o Ngāti Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā o koutou. Nāku te whiwhi ki te kōrero mō Te Rōpū Kākāriki.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, greetings to the House, and warm greetings to you Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, on this, your day. It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Green Party.]

I rise, and would like to tautoko the points that the previous speaker, Todd Muller, made about how special it is to have the House united and moving forward with this settlement.

I was born and raised in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in Auckland. I never, however, learnt about the mana whenua of Auckland, and in the circles in which I grew up that was normal. Ignorance of our land’s history was indeed normal. It wasn’t until I was at university that I first started to really learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It wasn’t until I was in the ironically privileged setting of law school that I was truly able to genuinely engage with the founding, living document of Aotearoa New Zealand. If I’m lucky enough to have children in the future, I don’t want them to grow up in that same ignorance.

We live in a colonised land, and the institution in which we presently operate is a colonial institution. But, with the knowledge of our history, it gives us the opportunity to consciously transform our present and our future. So, on behalf of the Green Party, I want to acknowledge the ongoing mahi and sacrifice to get to this point of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in gathering their histories, and sharing their whakapapa and their lived experiences of alienation.

Having been lucky enough and privileged indeed to sub out for our new co-leader Marama Davidson at the hearing on this bill in Tāmaki-makau-rau, at the Jet Park Hotel, I want to acknowledge the trauma and hurt that’s been brought up throughout this process, and associated, indeed, to its delay. I want to acknowledge the simultaneous sense of liberation felt by some in the journey of their discovery, of their whakapapa, their kuia, their kaumātua, and their rangatahi. I want to acknowledge those who’ve worked to achieve this settlement, and those who’ve passed before it’s been brought to this point in its fruition.

This bill contains powerful stories of our collective history. It’s an archive. It’s an insight into the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau, of where I grew up and what I grew up not knowing. This represents a critical step in fixing the history books. If we commit to continuing the work and remedying the evident hole in our education system, that signals a cultural change—predominantly, I note, for Pākehā. It signals the beginning of a genuine Te Tiriti relationship, an upholding of the founding document of our country, and the relationship and power sharing that that document is predicated on.

As outlined in this bill, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has maintained customary interests and ahi kā in Tāmaki, Hauraki, and the Hauraki Gulf since time immemorial. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki consider that their tūpuna did not intend to permanently alienate their ancestral lands through transactions in the late 1830s. Those transactions were attempts by their tūpuna to foster ongoing, mutually beneficial relationships with the Europeans.

In 1837, during negotiations for a large block of land in Tāmaki, a missionary documented in writing that iwi and hapū who had sold their land would retain at least one-third of the block for their personal use for ever. In 1842, a Land Claims commissioner backed this up with recommendations that the Crown leave one-third of the missionary purchase to the undisturbed possession of Māori. Despite this, the Crown did not properly assess the adequacy of the land left to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, meaning they ended up with a fraction of the original block and substantially less than the one-third that was promised. So too the hugely significant Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki interest in Motutapu ended up alienated. At Karaka Bay, on 4 March 1840, two Ngāi Tai rangatira signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Yet still, after the Treaty’s signing, tens of thousands of acres more land were confiscated, sold, and alienated.

All of this is why the section 9 Crown acknowledgments are so critical. The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the longstanding grievances of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown acknowledges that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sought to establish mutually beneficial relationships with the Europeans and the Crown by participating in these land transactions, and that those transactions contributed to the development of Auckland and Aotearoa New Zealand as a whole.

The Crown acknowledges that its historical military activity and occupation north of Mangatawhiri led to death and dislocation with the rohe of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. The Crown acknowledges that by 1880, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki were virtually left landless, and the Crown’s failure to ensure that it retains significant and sufficient land for their present and future needs was, indeed, a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That has impacted Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s well-being and ability to exercise manaakitanga in their rohe.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is, as we all know, however, not just about property rights but an ongoing relationship between iwi, hapū, and the Crown. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand recognises the Treaty settlement process for what it is: an opportunity for iwi Māori, under the pressure of economic and social hardship and within the constraints of a Crown-imposed process, to make the best deal possible to re-establish a small economic base for their people. The financial redress in this settlement process as a whole represents, however, under 1 percent of what was stolen, and polices such as large natural groupings often generate further Te Tiriti breaches. It is an imperfect process, but it’s what we’ve currently got, and I can guarantee that the Greens are committed to keeping up the mahi to continue improving this process and improving redress.

So too our party recognises Te Tiriti is not something to be fully and finally settled. We want Te Tiriti to be fully honoured and implemented at every level of government. We also need to be careful with the enduring narrative associated with Te Tiriti processes: that they enable iwi to provide social services, which are the core responsibilities of the Crown. While we uphold mana motuhake and encourage greater Māori participation in social service delivery, we cannot expect iwi to suddenly have the resources to provide for all of their people.

This bill contains an account of history, apologies from the Crown, financial redress, an option to purchase land, and the vesting of 16 sites of historical, cultural, and spiritual co-management structures. It reverts the names of sites to their indigenous Te Reo Māori names, and recognises the right to renegotiate further redress.

The submissions on this bill, which I was privileged to hear, spoke to heartache, to alienation from whakapapa, to Te Reo, to culture, from a sense of belonging. So too there was a submission from Ngāti Wai on overlapping claims, which was addressed by previous speakers—such is the flaw in the notion of large natural groupings. This process is not perfect, but it is a step towards crucial recognition of the hurt the Crown has caused historically, of fixing the history books and undoing some of the damage. It is about rebuilding a relationship. On behalf of the Green Party, I commend this bill to the House. Kia kaha.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The speaker who has just resumed her seat, Chlöe Swarbrick, is a new member to the House, and she would do well to realise early on in her parliamentary career that simply coming to the House on an important piece of legislation such as this, that is so historically important and so meaningful to the people who have been patient and waiting so long, with a formulaic, cut-and-paste speech that she’s used previously is an embarrassment and an insult to the process of Treaty settlements. My advice to her is to do a bit of homework—do a bit of homework—and spend some time investing something more than a cut-and-paste, and just putting the name of the iwi into the stock standard speech. The Ngāi Tai people deserve better than that.

I listened very carefully to previous contributions in this debate. Like my colleague Todd Muller, I was very impressed with the speech of the Hon Willie Jackson, and, like my colleague Todd Muller, it’s not often that I sit and listen in very concentrated form to the Hon Willie Jackson, but on this occasion I did. I think that he nicely summed up some of the issues and dramas that occur on Treaty settlement bills such as this.

The story is that we’re not there yet. This is only the second reading of this bill. There is a way yet to go, but, my goodness, what a long way we have come already. I didn’t sit on the select committee, but I note from their report back to the House that the committee hasn’t made any substantive amendments to the bill. That’s a credit to the negotiators, that’s a credit to the tribe, that’s a credit to, in particular, my friend and colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has been so involved with so many of these settlements all around the country in a way that has been the hallmark, I think, of his parliamentary career. I know that he’s going to be doing a lot more good in this area yet.

So when Willie Jackson stood and spoke about the struggle and the history and the patience, and also of the people who have passed on during this process, that resonates with me and it resonates with members on this side of the House. Doug Graham and Jim Bolger started this process back in the 1980s at a time when they were largely vilified by large sections of New Zealand society for embarking on the process. But here we are, all these years later, making good progress, and this iwi has been patient, along with many others.

The history of the wrongs that have been done and of the ills that have occurred as a result of alienation cannot, as the Hon Willie Jackson has said, be even remotely properly addressed by the financial and cultural redress that this bill contains. But it’s the apology—it’s the apology that so often is the important factor. I want to line up with others on this side of the House and across the Parliament to ensure that, actually, this bill and its progress through the House is given due attention, appropriate attention, that is respectful of the gracious, humble patience experienced by those who have brought it to the House. I wish this bill well as it progresses through to third reading.

At times, this is Parliament at its absolute best. It’s interesting that if the Government was busy and had a full legislative programme, we probably wouldn’t be debating this on a Thursday afternoon. But that being as it is, it’s still a good bill. I endorse it and I commend it to the House.

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

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Tēnā koe ki a koutou o Ngāi Tāua ki Tāmaki kua tae mai ā-tinana, kua tae mai ā-wairua rānei. Kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, I greet you. I greet you and the Māori people of Tāmaki who have come in person or in spirit. Greetings, greetings, greetings.]

It is an absolute honour to take this short call on the second reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill, as the Labour list member of Parliament based in Papakura and Tāmaki. My acknowledgment goes to the honourable members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Malo e laumalie, ngā mihi. As a person from Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, I want to acknowledge the chair here, Rino Tirikatene, for his leadership through the journey of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill.

At the second reading of this bill, my kōrero is going to be about the leadership and perseverance of Ānaru Makiwhara. At the first reading of this bill, the Hon Chris Finlayson stated it in the first reading. My kōrero is, basically, talking about the journey of Ānaru Makiwhara through until today, and I want to quote the story because I think it needs to be told again.

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

We fast track that journey 91 years, since 1927. In the submission to the Māori Affairs Committee, Emily Karaka wrote, “This submission to the Select Committee is in support of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. It is submitted on behalf of the descendants of our late grandmother and mother Milly Ngāpawa Ball, formerly Menzies, nèe Beamish. Milly’s grandfather was the respected Waikato tohunga-ta-moko Anaru Makiwhara. Her great great grandfather was Tara te Irirangi, paramount ariki of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki at the time of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Through her mother, Emere, Milly’s whānau had close ties to prominent Tainui hapū.”

I bring that story because of Milly’s children, Harold and Valerie, who has passed. Milly had a child named Narua. Narua was named after Ānaru, but her name was reversed in terms of—I’ll just say it properly. I know I’m running out of time. But, actually, “Milly’s daughter Narua, our aunty, suffered alienation in a different way. Narua was named after her great grandfather Anaru. The ‘A’ at the beginning of the name was placed at the end forming ‘Narua’, a gentle, easily spoken name. Sadly, the next part of the story is not so gentle.” So throughout the 1930s and what the Hon Willie Jackson has spoken about—the discrimination, and we’ve all heard it in this House. What happened was that Narua was the contributor to the submission to the select committee.

I say to the House today that the spirit of Ānaru Makiwhara is still alive today, because his name is worth saying again and again in the Whare in this second reading, and I hope I get an opportunity, or someone gets an opportunity, to acknowledge Ānaru at the next final reading of this bill.

I want to end my kōrero today with this kīanga. The resilience and the determination of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki reminds me of a well-known kīanga, “He manawa tītī, he manawa kaioke.”

[“The people have persevered to find justice where justice is due.”]

Kia ora.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this second reading of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill. Of course, this iwi is based in my electorate of Hunua, at the wonderful place of Maraetai, where the main marae is. It’s a beautiful spot. It’s often seen on the Air New Zealand ads, where people are jumping off a wharf into the sea. It is a gorgeous place, and I drive past that area regularly.

I’ve got to say that in my dealings with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, particularly through Mr David Beamish around the rāhui of the cockles being picked up at Kawakawa Bay, they have been very good to deal with, and I commend them for some of the actions they’ve taken in terms of conservation.

But this bill, of course, rightly deals with an injustice. I didn’t sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, but I’m glad to see that this bill is progressing through the House. Of course, it reflects the signing of the initial Treaty deed by the Hon Chris Finlayson in August 2017. It’s easy to focus on the value of the settlement, but we know that this bill represents much more than that. The story of the alienation of property and people is one that cuts across a long history. The story that goes behind this bill is one of travesty, and it is like so many other bills that we have been dealing with in terms of addressing those wrongs. It is great to see that it is being dealt with and handled with care and sensitivity.

The key elements of this agreement include some very significant and notable parts of their area around Hunua, particularly the land that’s under the Clevedon School and the Maraetai Beach School that has been vested to the iwi but, of course, on a long-term lease to the Ministry of Education. They are two very fine schools.

We’ve also included the vestment of the Te Wairoa river conservation area—a beautiful area—and a lot of work’s been done on that river to improve its conservation value. The Whitford conservation area, a small little area by the village, and Hihiorapa Urupā, otherwise known as the famous Hunua Falls scenic reserve, and I’m sure many people in the House have been to those beautiful falls. It’s a big attraction but it’s a very significant and well-known landmark in the area. And, of course, Totara, which is known as the Clevedon conservation areas. All of these are very special areas to everyone in that general proximity and draw a lot of visitors from across Auckland, as well as other places.

So I just want to lend my voice to the good work that’s been done on this bill. We’d all like to see it progress more quickly, and it will in time. I just, finally, want to acknowledge the rangatira who are here today to witness this next stage of the progression towards dealing with this injustice that I talked about at the outset. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): Tēnā anō tātou katoa, me Reo Māori ēnei kōrero ōku. I will speak Māori for a few minutes, Mr Assistant Speaker. Taku mihi ki a Ngāi Tai, me te mātau ko Ngāi Tai he pānga nōna ki Te Moana a Toi, he pānga nōna ki roto i a Tāmaki Makaurau, ā, roa rātou e tatari ana kia tatū ai ēnei take. Tētahi wahanga ka oti i te wā i whakataungia ai ngā nawe whenua mō Tainui whānui, tētahi i toe mai, nā, koia tēnei tā tātou e whakatutuki i tēnei rā.

Ahakoa te iti o te tangata kei kōnā anō te mana, e rapa tonu ana ki runga i ngā tapuae i mahue mai i ō rātou mātua. Nā reira ko tāku he mihi ki a rātou, ko tāku he mihi ki Te Minita a Hon Christopher Finlayson, mōna i kawe, i pīkau i tēnei take mō te hia rānei roa. I roto a Ngāi Tai i te mātotoru o ngā iwi ririki kei roto i te rohe o Tāmaki Makaurau, nā reira i roto i tō tātou Reo Māori, te wairua Māori tāku he mihi atu ki a rātou.

[Greetings again to all, these parts of my speech should be in the Māori language. I will speak Māori for a few minutes, Mr Assistant Speaker. I greet Ngāi Tai, knowing that Ngāi Tai have connections to the Bay of Plenty, and connections within Auckland, and they have been waiting a long time for these matters to be settled. One part was completed at the time the land grievances for the wider Tainui group were settled; the other has remained until now, and it is that which we will complete today.

Despite the low number of people, they still have prestige, they continue to adhere to the footsteps left behind by their elders. Therefore, I congratulate them. I congratulate the Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has carried and taken care of this matter for goodness knows how long. Ngāi Tai is amongst the many small iwi in the Auckland district. Therefore, it is in our Māori language, and the Māori spirit that I congratulate them.]

So I stand to take a call to affirm the efforts, to affirm the leadership that Minister Chris Finlayson showed, and the patience of Job, in dealing with all of the iwi groups that comprise the Tāmaki-makau-rau collective. Not quite true to say he’s shown the wisdom of Solomon, but he certainly has shown tenacity, because this has been a particularly troubled part of the broader landscape of settling claims. Many overlapping claims, many challenges, but Ngāi Tai, from the Maraetai Umupuia district, should stand proud today. They had a leader, whom I knew very well. The name of the kuia was Ngeungeu Zister. That leader was born the same year as my grandmother: 1893.

When I was a lad at St Stephen’s Māori boys school for five years, on various occasions we went to Umupuia. We went there on one particular occasion for a tangi, and we met not only there but at Tūrangawaewae the kuia I’m talking about. I think, given that the majority of Kiwis, if not iwis, when they think about Tāmaki-makau-rau, they think of Ngāti Whātua—nowadays, we call it Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, but that’s a recent innovation—and they think about Tainui, and possibly, if they know their history, they would think about Ngāti Pāua and the young woman that Ngāti Pāua betrothed to Patuone, the chief of the Ngāpuhi who lived nigh on 100 years and who came out of Hokianga and settled on the northern shores of the Waitematā Harbour. History has it that when Hōne Heke, after the Ruapekapeka battle, made a threat that he would come and follow his foe to Auckland, it was both Pōtatau Te Wherewhero who said, “Do not stand on the hem of my cloak.” and it was also Patuone who said, “E kore koe e puta i taku atarangi.”—“If you come here, Hone Heke, you will not emerge from beyond my shadow.”

Hōne Heke, with his fellow traveller the ancient warrior of Ngāti Hine, Kāwiti, made moves to take on Tāmaki-makau-rau. Of course, Ngāti Whātua at that stage lived in abject fear that the Ngāpuhis would come back and finish off what they didn’t do at the battle of Te Ika-a-Ranganui. By this time, though, Christianity was reigning quite strong, and the fact that we still have the descendants proudly claiming and celebrating their pou whenua and mana whenua and their identity, despite the rapid growth of metropolitan Auckland and the crowding of other iwi, such as my own iwi of the Tai Tokerau, I want to acknowledge today.

Umupuia is a tiny settlement, and the challenge is for any indigenous group wanting to project their identity and to teach the next generation, and ensuring that they are not smothered as Auckland marches wider and wider is a challenge. But I think that this settlement not only gives them statutory recognition but it affirms the fact that they are the people of the land. Of course, the cordiality that they might, or might not, achieve with their neighbours is their business. The business of this Parliament is to support the passage of this legislation, acknowledge their history, acknowledge their tupuna who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and also to acknowledge the fact that, as we move from the settlement phase and we move into post-settlement, each particular iwi needs to forge a journey forward in partnership with the Crown where it’s appropriate for the Crown to join them on a joint endeavour.

We must never allow the phrase of the Treaty or the principles of partnership that were enunciated by Cook in the great lands case of 1987 to be forgotten. As a country, our ethnicities grow and they are multiplying, but our roots are clear. Our roots are of a binary nature, and they are reflected in the Treaty. The inheritors of the great liberal traditions evidenced in this particular Westminster Parliament, and the indigenous traditions rooted in the Pacific, evolved here in New Zealand. Although, as I said in Māori, the numerical strength of the people may be small, their footprints should remain firm and robust on this part of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

So, once again, in the spirit of amity—something that is disappearing by the day—I acknowledge Christopher Finlayson and the role that he’s played in this particular settlement, and a host of others. I join with the other speakers in wishing the iwi not so much success but that they put into practice what this bill represents: an opportunity to derive some revenue and an opportunity to protect the places of sacredness or esteem in their rohe. To the member for Hunua—I would tell him that hunuhunu, or hunua, means “to be scorched”. Please be a good and loyal member, not just for the Pākehā members of your area but for all voters—and a number of the Ngāi Tai people, I’ve no doubt, are voters within your area—for fear that you suffer the other meaning of hunu, which is to be singed in a private place. Thank you very much.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I always enjoy Mr Jones’ excellent contributions, and his warning to my good friend the MP for Hunua, I am sure, will be taken on board. Of course, Mr Bayly is an excellent member for Hunua, unlike one of his predecessors, Mr Peters, who lost Hunua—and Andrew Bayly has a majority of about 20,000—just as he lost Northland and also—what’s the other one he lost?

Hon Member: Tauranga.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Tauranga—a chronic loser.

Mr Jones—I think he was praising me—said that I had the patience of Job but not the wisdom of Solomon. I would have preferred the wisdom of Solomon. Actually, I don’t know that Job was all that patient, because if you read the Book of Job—as I’m sure Mr Jones does—at the end of the day, Job starts moaning and bellyaching. Finally, Yahweh tells him, basically, to man up.

So I have to confess that when considering this bill, I did not have the patience of Job or anyone else. In fact, I got quite short-tempered. There were two reasons for that. The first issue, and it’s referred to in the report—and I’m not going to give one of those boilerplate, formulaic speeches that the Greens specialise in; I will focus on the report—concerns overlapping claims, because there have been quite a number of overlapping claims in this area, as Mr Jones knows full well, and they are very, very tiresome.

This one involved overlapping claims between Ngāti Wai and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Ngāti Wai came along—as they often do, I regret to say—to say that they wanted to deal with these claims “in accordance with a proper tikanga process before the bill is enacted.” That’s always shorthand, for me, to mean that nothing ever happens—because I’ve come across that phrase before—but the reality of the matter is that we do need to advance claims.

There will be overlapping claims. Some of them are very, very difficult indeed, like the ones on the Chathams that Mr Little is dealing with at the moment, but the Crown does have a very careful overlapping claims policy. It applied that policy in the negotiations that took place, and I know that Sir John Clarke, a great New Zealander, was heavily involved in dealing with these overlapping claims, but it is the obligation not only of the Crown—everyone always talks about the Crown’s obligation, but it’s the obligation not only of the Crown but of the various iwi groups to engage on these matters and try and reach a conclusion which is satisfactory to both sides.

I strongly support the policy of the Crown for dealing with overlapping claims, but they simply do need to be dealt with. In fact, this afternoon, I’ve been reading an excellent draft paper by Amokura Kāwharu on arbitration of Treaty of Waitangi settlement disputes, and she particularly identifies these kinds of overlapping claims which could be susceptible for arbitration. If you want to hear any more about her splendid speech, then I suggest members may want to come to Queenstown on 20 April, when she and I will be presenting on this topic, and mine will be pretty good as well.

The second issue I want to deal with is referred to in the report. It’s the time frame between the deed signing and the bill introduction, and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki had some particular views about this. But, again, it was totally out of the Crown’s control because the legislation involving Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki was encompassed in the broader Hauraki legislation. What we needed to do when it became apparent that the overlapping claims in the southern part of Hauraki between Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāi Te Rangi were not going to be very quickly resolved was extract the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki claims from the legislation and deal with it separately. It was a very difficult exercise. Parliamentary counsel did a good job, and that was done by the Crown as quickly as possible.

But the other point—and it’s referred to in the report—is that after the deed of settlement was signed and before this legislation was introduced, there was an advance made to them to try and mitigate the problems associated with the lapse of time in introducing this legislation to the House. But it’s not a delay, and it is not the fault of the Crown. There have been difficult issues in the broader Hauraki region which Mr Little is dealing with now, and that’s why, initially, it was grouped together as part of the broader Hauraki legislation and now it stands on its own. So, as Mr Jones correctly observed, in this part of the world there are very complex overlapping historical claims and they are not easy to resolve.

So they are the two matters that I wanted to refer to. The report is a very adequate report, and I look forward to seeing this legislation advance to the third reading just as quickly as possible. With those few specific comments—as opposed to general, waffly comments—I commend the bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Tēnā koutou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this settlement bill. I wasn’t on the Māori Affairs Committee, but my colleagues there on the committee tell me they heard very well-thought-out and presented submissions on this bill. Therefore, I do want to acknowledge all the submitters that took the time to give their thoughts and their concerns to the committee. I have looked carefully at the Māori Affairs Committee report, and it seems very clear to me that the committee have given thoughtful consideration to all the concerns raised with them.

The report has noted the overlapping claims. I agree that, ideally, overlapping claims in relation to specific redress matters be addressed through mutual agreement between the overlapping groups. I can only imagine how difficult and challenging this process must be for both parties, and I wish them all the best for the future.

I want to acknowledge the Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki negotiators, the Crown negotiator, and officials. I also acknowledge the former Minister, Hon Chris Finlayson, and the current Minister, Hon Andrew Little. This is a very good settlement bill, and it will provide excellent opportunities for Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki and their future generation. I am certain that they are looking forward to progressing their plans for the future.

As the Government’s final speaker on the second reading of this bill, I’d like to say that Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki have waited long enough for their legislation to be passed, and I don’t want them to wait any longer. So I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Commerce Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Commerce Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 10 September 2018, to enable the new market studies function for the Commerce Commission to come into effect this year.

As Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I am committed to supporting a more competitive, confident, and productive business environment that delivers positive outcomes for all New Zealanders. Consumers should be at the heart of competition and consumer policy, and this is why advancing the Commerce Amendment Bill to ensure that selected markets are delivering better outcomes for all New Zealanders is a priority.

Although this bill has three parts, which I will touch on shortly, the ability of the Commerce Commission to undertake market studies is the key element of this bill. Market studies will ensure New Zealand consumers get fair and appropriate treatment by delivering information about how a market is functioning. I believe well-functioning markets are necessary to ensure the successful functioning of the broader systems that are engines for economic growth. These studies allow us to identify whether there are factors in a market that are standing in the way of appropriate competition and that may be preventing consumers from receiving a fair deal or prohibiting honest business practice. Enabling the Commerce Commission to carry out market studies will give us a better understanding of how certain markets are performing, and whether there may be matters preventing or inhibiting good market performance.

However, as mentioned, this bill is divided into three parts, with two other amendments to the Commerce Act in addition to the market studies power. Firstly, this bill changes the airports regulation regime under Part 4 of the Commerce Act. I have considered the outcomes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) review into the effectiveness of the economic regulation regime for airports under the Commerce Act, and MBIE’s review and the two rounds of consultation with airports and airlines identified that while the regime had largely worked well to date, there were some areas in the bill that could be improved.

This bill makes a number of legislative amendments to strengthen the current information disclosure regime for airports under Part 4. The review found that there was not a compelling case for a move to stronger negotiate/arbitrate regimes, as the current information disclosure regime had worked to constrain the market power of New Zealand’s major airports. However, I do consider some changes are necessary to make it easier to impose further regulation on the airports if the current regime is no longer effective at achieving the purpose of the regulation.

In this area, the bill will clarify the Commerce Commission’s power to examine the effectiveness of the information disclosure regime in Part 4 when looking at the performance of regulated suppliers. It will also introduce a short-form inquiry process for investigating the need for additional regulation at the airports if they are not meeting the long-term interests of consumers. Finally in this area, it will clarify that an Order in Council process can be used to impose additional regulation on regulated services at the three regulated airports that we have the moment. Taken together, these amendments will strengthen the credibility of the regime and incentivise airports to act consistently with their Part 4 purpose, which is to promote the long-term interests of consumers.

Secondly, as previously mentioned, the bill introduces a competition study power, known, and referred to earlier, as a market study power, into the Commerce Act. This power will be exercisable by the Commerce Commission at its own discretion or on the discretion of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs where that is in the public interest. This new power will allow the commission to shine a light into markets that may not be working effectively and in the best interests of consumers. We have concerns in regard to some markets that appear not to be working as well as they should be for consumers, and it is hoped that a Commerce Commission study will identify the causes of poor performance in these markets through the extension of this information-gathering power. The outcome of these studies may inform the Government on whether intervention is desirable and, if so, on what form that intervention may take.

The previous Government supported market studies powers for the Commerce Commission, though they insisted all proposals for a market study must first be signed off by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. This Government is taking the politics out of the market studies power by giving the commission the ability to initiate the study if it deems it necessary in the best interests of the public. This bill also allows for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to initiate market studies. However, there are necessary checks and balances provided for, to ensure market studies are used where there is a real need in the interests of consumers.

The last aspect of the Commerce Amendment Bill relates to the alternative enforcement mechanisms available to the Commerce Commission in the Commerce Act. There are two main changes this bill proposes in this area. First, it repeals the little-used cease and desist regime, which was introduced some years ago. The regime was intended to be a quick and easy way for the commission to stop harmful anti-competitive conduct, but, in practice, the regime has only been used once. With the commission choosing to rely on the use of High Court injunctions to stop harmful anti-competitive conduct in a quick and cost-effective manner, it’s now considered that the cease and desist power is not needed. The two cease and desist commissioners have not been called upon to make a decision since 2006.

The second change in this area relates to the introduction of enforceable undertakings in the Commerce Act. Enforceable undertakings are legal instruments to provide for settlements of enforcement actions by the Commerce Commission. If a firm breaches its settlement, the Commerce Commission can enforce the undertaking as if it were a court decision. Currently, the commission can only enforce a breach of settlement as if it was a breach of a contract and not a substantive breach of the Act. So this will provide greater assurance that firms will keep to the settlements they reach with the commission.

In summary, I believe that this bill is a welcome step towards improving New Zealand’s competition system. I’m particularly hopeful that the opportunities of the new market studies regime for helping to promote competitive markets will benefit all New Zealanders and promote honest business. As the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I’m committed to supporting a more competitive, confident, and productive business environment. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I would like to be able to say it is my pleasure to rise to speak on this bill, but actually that wouldn’t quite characterise my feelings towards this particular process. I don’t want to start off by haranguing or maligning our Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, but this bill isn’t—I don’t believe, at least—what the public would consider to be a Government bill, because the public would consider that to be the thoughts of the new Government, their view on what the markets need, and perhaps what consumers need.

What this bill actually is—and it is evidenced if one looks at the Cabinet papers that have come to this Government and the Cabinet papers that went to the previous Government—is not a Government bill; it’s an officials’ bill. The officials sought certain changes under the last Government. Some of those were declined or amended, but they’ve got a new Minister and they’ve put the same old proposals back, and here we are, talking about not the new coalition Government’s bill but, in fact, a bill that is proposed and is the wording and the justification not of the Government but of a single Government entity.

I was told today by one of my colleagues that while it is nice to be important, it is important to be nice, so I don’t want to start by criticising Mr Faafoi’s justification of his bill. Instead, in acknowledgment of our joint “military service” together—and I use that term in inverted commas because our joint “military service” was 48 hours at Ōhākea airbase in the last parliamentary term—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Whatever happened on base stays on base.

BRETT HUDSON: —that’s right; I won’t give them the details, Mr Faafoi—when Mr Faafoi and I enjoyed each other’s company, and particularly the company of our servicemen and women, as we got to learn about what it takes to make an air force tick and to make a base tick. It was a wonderful example of getting along. And so I’d like to congratulate Mr Faafoi for bringing forward the third element of this bill, which is enforceable undertakings.

The reality is that the cease and desist measures that had been available were not used at all, really—once, I think Mr Faafoi put forward—and were really not a usable and worthwhile provision for the Commerce Commission. Enforceable undertakings will give a more practical and more pragmatic approach for the commission to make findings and to agree with businesses to change their practices in lieu of perhaps more onerous or more Draconian measures, and those undertakings can be easily or readily backed up with the authority and force of our courts. So I do commend Mr Faafoi for introducing this bill with at least that provision. But the other two parts of the bill are not sufficiently good enough to warrant, in my view, the support of the Opposition or, indeed, the support of the Parliament.

Now, I do commend the intention, because I do believe, having listened to Mr Faafoi’s speech, that consumer protection and avoidance of consumer harm sits behind the rationale as to why they have accepted officials’ advice and put forward the bill in the form it is in. But I don’t believe that it actually is really going to deliver against their intent, because there are some, at the very least, unintended consequences, and I don’t want to malign officials or indeed the Commerce Commission by intimating there may be more, but there certainly are, at the very least, unintended consequences.

The market studies—herein lies the problem. With the Commerce Commission, who, I believe, are an absolutely and thoroughly professional organisation of members, with absolute integrity. They are formed in the structure of a commission, and in the structure of a commission the decision makers and the governance level are the same people. So if a decision is made under what Mr Faafoi has introduced, which differs from Cabinet approval from the previous Government—that market studies can be self-initiated by the Commerce Commission—there is no other check or balance to that decision. The decision is made by the commissioners, and the commissioners are both the decision makers and the governors, in effect, of the commission.

So, in reality, there are no checks or balances to what they choose to do. I don’t malign them. I believe they are absolutely professional individuals and, what’s more, I believe they do a very good job—but I do believe, Mr Assistant Speaker, that I’ll be back.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.