Thursday, 3 May 2018

THURSDAY, 3 MAY 2018

THURSDAY, 3 MAY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider a range of legislation, including the first readings of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill, the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, the Local Electoral Matters Bill, and the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngati Porou Bill (No 2). The Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill will have its committee stage. The Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill will have its second reading and committee stage. The Families Commission Act Repeal Bill will have its committee stage and third reading.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House. I wonder if, for planning purposes, the House leader could indicate whether parliamentary colleagues should be clearing their diaries and planning for urgency on Friday, 18 May.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I can assure the House that I have fully informed the Business Committee of the Government’s intentions in that regard.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Job Creation and Unemployment—New Job Numbers, Beneficiaries’ Obligations, and Proposed Budget Changes to Benefits

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, most certainly—when they’re in their context.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is her Government still “focused on getting people into work”, and, if so, can she confirm that since October, only 4,000 jobs had been created per month?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can say is the Government has never had any other greater priority than to get New Zealanders back into work. We’ve just had the most stunning record in the last 10 years—the lowest that the unemployment rate has ever been in 10 years.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that in the two years before the election, 10,000 extra jobs were created each month, on average, leading to New Zealand having the third-highest employment rate in the developed world, and we now only have 4,000 jobs being created per month?

SPEAKER: The member can answer the second part. He’s got no responsibility for the first.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Mr Speaker, I could answer the first part as well by saying it’s not true. As for the second part, what we can say—and it’s a cause for enormous celebration, which I’d invite the member to join—is that we’ve got the lowest unemployment rate in 10 years.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will her Government’s policy to shut down oil and gas exploration, putting more than 11,000 jobs at risk, help or hinder job creation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There could be no comment more far from the truth than that last statement in respect of shutting down. First of all, no existing permit is being shut down, and everybody in this country needs to hear it, and the people of Taranaki should not have to hear this miserable message that is false and is extreme. An area the size of the North Island will still be available for exploration, probably for the next 30, 40 years.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that our welfare system should be one of reciprocal obligations, and those that can look for work should?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We, as a Government, have been very concerned to ensure that we take responsibility, when people are unemployed, to get them back to work as fast as possible. That’s why we have so many initiatives to take people who were out of work when we become the Government back into work with a real future.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that beneficiaries should be drug-free and able to pass a drug test if that is what a potential job requires?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the policies that we are working on do not have that harsh provision, because if someone is not drug-free, it doesn’t mean that they’re beyond redemption, that serious programmes cannot turn their lives around, and that’s what we intend to do. We see the positive side of sound social policy, not the harsh, stringent side of right-wing arrogance.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree that someone who is on welfare and meets the criteria of a job search should be sanctioned if they repeatedly refuse to attend job interviews?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we are developing policies with respect to the employed and the long-term unemployed in this country. That policy will be unfolded and be, possibly, in some description, described as to its costings in the Budget on 17—

Alastair Scott: This must hurt, saying this. This must really hurt.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Hon Members: Who’s that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a fascinating question. When it came to issues of unemployment—for example, the closure of a road near his electorate last time—he didn’t even turn up. There were 600 people there, including me, but he never turned up—at Foxton, he remembers that. So, as to who he is, nobody’s any wiser in the Wairarapa either.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As entertaining as that answer was, it didn’t answer the question at all.

SPEAKER: Well, actually, when supplementaries are made, even from the seat by the member for Wairarapa, the member can’t expect the answer not to be diverted.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister support an increase to benefits, above inflation, in this year’s Budget?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that we are at the eleventh hour of some glorious news, which will be announced on 11 May. That member should just be a little bit more patient. After all, she waited nine years for nothing. She only has to wait about nine days for something.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she be supporting free dental care for those aged over 65 with a SuperGold card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to say that that has to wait until the announcement on 17 May, but if there are members over there who are of age and have got dental problems, come over and we’ll give you health.

Question time interrupted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to clarify the statement that I made in response to Mr Woodhouse’s question.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In response to Mr Woodhouse’s question, I indicated that I had informed the Business Committee of the Government’s intention. I did not do that as part of the meeting’s proceedings. If necessary, as I’m required to do under the Standing Orders, I will do so.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Local Government—Cost of Māori Ward Polls

2. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Local Government: Has she received any advice, including the cost to ratepayers, on the five polls taking place on the establishment of Maori wards; if so, what was that advice?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): No, I haven’t received any specific advice about the cost of the five polls currently under way regarding Māori wards.

Marama Davidson: Given the cost pressures on local government, is she concerned that the current polls seeking to overturn councils’ decisions on Māori wards are reportedly costing local councils up $140,000?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Costs of stand-alone polls vary from council to council. I am aware anecdotally that within each local government area, the cost of holding such polls is a concern to them.

Marama Davidson: Does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand, who in their open letter to her said that “The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable.” and that they “damage[s] race relations in our districts.”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am aware of that statement and they go on to add, “Either the poll provision should apply to all wards or they should apply to none. The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable.” More so, that view is held by the five districts currently holding the polls, which is why they’re campaigning very hard to ensure that people participate before 19 May.

Marama Davidson: Does she agree that local elected members are perfectly able to make decisions on the establishment of Māori wards, just as they do with general wards, and that the current situation is a double standard for Māori representation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That is certainly a strong view that is held by the sector representative group, Local Government New Zealand, and a range of councils who have advocated to local MPs, as well as myself as local government Minister.

Marama Davidson: Is she concerned about the effect of these discriminatory polls that set up extra hurdles for Māori participation, given the UN has noted that Aotearoa has “persistently low levels of Māori representation in local government”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m concerned that the poll drives the wrong conversation at a local level, where time has moved on, and actually the sentiment of local people has moved on because Māori are participating positively and contributing to well-being outcomes—and they want to, which is why they seek Māori representation.

Marama Davidson: Is she doing any work to change the law around Māori wards, given that the Labour Party voted for my member’s bill in the 51st Parliament, which would have removed this discriminatory provision, and, if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It is correct to say that the Labour Party had a very clear position on this. As we work these issues forward for the coalition and confidence and supply Government, it’s important that I provide all the information available so that we can ensure that the issue of Māori representation and contributing to positive outcomes in the region is not overshadowed by negative sentiment which seeks to divide views at a local level. This issue must be owned at a local level, and I’m sure we will get to the right outcome in time.

Fiscal Strategy—Tax Plan and Effect of Proposed Fuel Taxes

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept that the Half year Economic and Fiscal Update shows $23.1 billion in surpluses over the next four years, additional borrowing of $10 billion in the next three years, and that the latest Crown financial statements for February 2018 show an additional $494 million is available; if so, why is the Government increasing taxes and not keeping its promise to reduce the cost of GP visits for all New Zealanders on 1 July this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, no, because the member has chosen two different starting points, both of which he describes as the next three or four years. What I do accept is that we are running a strong economy and we’ll deliver surpluses. In answer to the second part of the question, the final shape of the Government’s revenue and expenditure will be revealed on 17 May.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If the more than $33 billion available to him is not enough to solve the problems that he sees, would $50 billion be enough, or how much more does he think he needs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, look, the Government has inherited a series of significant social and infrastructure deficits. They will take more than one Budget to resolve, and so I say to the member that had his party not left the health system in such a state of disrepair, had not underfunded education, and had not undermined other social services, perhaps the sum of money he said at the start might be enough. We’ll see on 17 May.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it true that no matter how much tax hard-working New Zealanders pay, he will always want more?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I want is for New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—to pay their fair share. I want multinational companies to pay their fair share, unlike the previous Government who didn’t seem to care about that. And I want all New Zealanders to know that their public services will be there for them when they need them, unlike the legacy the previous Government left.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What other promises does he intend to break?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have not broken any promises, but I do recall the previous Government campaigned rigorously on not increasing GST, and what’s the first thing they did? They increased it.

Andrew Bayly: Does he consider the planned fuel tax’s increase to be significant enough to lead to higher living costs for families, because they will have to pay more for food and other household items?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I consider the proposed excise duty increase as one that will help support the provision of a modern transport system, and I probably feel the same way about that that Gerry Brownlee and Simon Bridges did when they increased it by 17c over a six-year period.

Andrew Bayly: Is Freightways’ chief executive, Mark Troughear, wrong when he says new fuel taxes will force consumer prices up, and therefore New Zealanders’ wallets would not just be taking a hit at the pump if a fuel tax was introduced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the impact will be similar to what it was when the previous Government increased it by 17c over a six-year period. But what this Government has done is taken untargeted and poorly focused tax cuts and put that money back in the pockets of low- and middle-income families so they can afford the increases in costs of living.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether it’s a fact, arising from his third answer, that in the nine years the last Government increased the fuel tax six times?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is, in fact, the case—six times, up 17c—and, amazingly, out of that, regional and rural New Zealand saw the quality of their roads decline. That’s not going to happen under this Government.

Beneficiaries—Obligations

4. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that “we as a state have to give people what they are entitled to, and so that is where our obligation lies.”?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes.

Hon Louise Upston: Given the State has obligations, does the Minister also believe that those receiving benefits have obligations, and that those that can work should be looking for work?

Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, yes. What we also want to make sure is that beneficiaries and all those in receipt of benefits from this Government receive their full and correct entitlement. In order to do that, we have some challenges, but we have a plan to fix it.

Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister believe that job seekers without children, who refuse work experience or training or recreational drug rehabilitation, should lose part of their benefit entitlement after four weeks of not meeting their obligations?

Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, the rules are very clear around the work-test sanctions for those who find themselves not available for work or breaking their job seeker obligations. But what we want to make sure of is that, first and foremost, we must work with these people to ensure that we address the reasons why they aren’t meeting those job seeker obligations, and not simply take a punitive approach that will see them fall into more hardship.

Hon Louise Upston: Is the Minister planning on removing any obligations in her significant welfare overhaul; if so, which ones?

Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, that member and the House will have to wait and see the work of the group that have been allocated this significant task.

Hon Louise Upston: Has the Minister given any instructions to the Ministry of Social Development about prosecutions for taking what they’re not entitled to and committing benefit fraud?

Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I’m unaware of any such advice, but I’m sure if the member would like to submit that question in writing, she’ll get the answer she’s looking for.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe people on benefit are entitled to more; and if yes, how much will benefits rise by on 1 July 2018?

Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, as I have mentioned earlier, fair and correct entitlement is what all New Zealanders are entitled to, not just beneficiaries, and can I make it clear to that member that one in five Kiwis actually receive support from this Government. So we want to make sure, first and foremost, they get the support and they know what their fair and correct entitlement is.

Auckland Transport Alignment Project—Impacts

5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What effect will the proposed $28 billion Auckland Transport Alignment Project have on congestion in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The joint investment of $28 billion over the next decade will unlock Auckland’s potential and drive economic growth and wealth creation. It is a game-changer for Auckland commuters and the first step in easing congestion that currently costs Auckland $1.3 billion every year. Projects such as the new rapid transit network, electrification of rail to Pukekohe, the third main rail line, Penlink, and Mill Road will make an incredible difference to commuters and businesses across Auckland.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What effects will the rapid transit network have on congestion in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the light rail line from the city to Māngere will have the capacity to move 11,000 people an hour each way. That’s the equivalent of four lanes of motorway. It will connect the CBD with one of the country’s biggest concentrations of jobs, at Māngere. Three-quarters of the people using this service will be commuters. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) will also extend the northern busway and build the eastern busway from Panmure to Botany and a busway from Puhinui to the airport. The Auckland Unitary Plan allows 531,000—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The answers are far too long, as they were yesterday.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does ATAP plan for future greenfields growth?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The ATAP package prioritises projects which address the most critical growth challenges so that Auckland can, for once, get ahead of the growth. That’s why the Government and Auckland Council are investing $500 million in Mill Road, are building Penlink, and will continue to widen the Southern Motorway and electrify the rail line to Pukekohe, investing $1.3 billion in major greenfield growth areas.

Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that the Mill Road and Penlink projects were already part of ATAP before he made his announcement recently and that he’s taken to re-announcing policies that were already there in this portfolio, just like his other portfolio?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I can confirm that Mill Road and Penlink were included in the old ATAP, but that plan had a $9.7 billion fiscal hole, and the public of Auckland had no idea when those roads would ever be built.

Export Sector—Exemption from US Steel Tariffs

6. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Does he believe the Government did all it could to avoid the imposition of tariffs by the United States on New Zealand steel and aluminium?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Yes.

Hon Todd McClay: Why, then, have the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia all received exemptions from US steel tariffs, yet he hasn’t delivered one for New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re in a similar position to Japan and a lot of other countries in that we have not secured an exemption as yet. We are continuing to seek one. The point of principle that lies behind the decisions that have been taken by the United States is hard to fathom.

Hon Todd McClay: Why has he not travelled to Washington to make the case for New Zealand steel and aluminium producers to be exempt from US tariffs when the Australian trade Minister achieved a permanent exemption for Australian exporters following his visit?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m flattered that the member thinks that I could achieve an exemption by visiting when Prime Minister Abe visited the United States last week and was unable to get one. I, in fact, did offer to go some weeks ago, but I was advised by officials that it wouldn’t make a difference, and I think Prime Minister Abe’s proven the point.

Hon Todd McClay: When he pleaded to be judged by results, not travel, in a Stuff article on 17 April titled “Trade Minister … pleads to be judged by results, not his travel”, does he believe that a trip to Washington would have helped deliver a result for the New Zealand steel and aluminium industry, as it did for Australian exporters—

SPEAKER: Order! The question’s finished.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m very confident that the Government’s trade-success to kilometres-travelled ratio will be better than National’s.

Hon Todd McClay: When will he deliver an exemption from these unfair US tariffs as the EU, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia have done, so that the New Zealand industry—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Todd McClay: —and the public can judge him—

SPEAKER: The question’s finished. Can I remind the member. I know that—well, in fact, I can’t remember when the member came in and whether he has been in Opposition before, but when the member’s finished his question, he should stop and not continue with an additional bit on the end. He had two legs; he’s not allowed three.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, we don’t know. We’re continuing to try. Already, the Prime Minister has written to the President of the US, I’ve written to the US trade representative, I’ve had a number of, and continuing, discussions with the US Ambassador to New Zealand, and I’ve got another meeting coming too. At the instruction of the coalition Government, our trade officials at all levels have been doing their utmost. That includes Ambassador Groser, who will be known to the House as the former chief trade negotiator for New Zealand and a former trade Minister. I have been accepting the advice of officials as to the process to be taken, as well as giving guidance, and I think we have done all we can.

Hon James Shaw: Is the reason why New Zealand doesn’t have an exemption to the US steel tariffs because President Trump can’t find New Zealand on a map?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m not going to allow that question.

Health Services—Air Ambulance Coverage

7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the Request for Proposals process for air ambulance helicopter services being run by the Ministry of Health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’m satisfied with the request for proposal (RFP) process, which was set up in May 2016 by the previous National Government. I’m satisfied that the process is driven by a desire to improve clinical outcomes for patients, but I have also been clear that I was not satisfied with early communication and engagement with local communities.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that the 70-nautical-mile coverage set out in the RFP excludes large tourist areas of the southern South Island, and that this will be made worse by the absence of a base in Te Ānau?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I am committed to is the best clinical outcomes for patients. All parts of New Zealand will continue to receive air ambulance services.

Hon Todd McClay: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he concerned that the identified bases in the RFP excludes Rotorua, Taupō, and Te Ānau, and will he commit to asking his ministry to explicitly amend the tender document in the same way that he did for the Gisborne base?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not clear on the additional leg the member’s added to the question, but I want people to know that this process is driven by concern to improve clinical outcomes for patients, and the process is still open.

Hon Louise Upston: What does the Minister say to the thousands of people who have protested in the streets, sent emails, and signed petitions concerned about the loss of life that would occur if the Taupō air ambulance service was removed, and also to the hard-working members of the Coromandel Rescue Helicopter Trust in Whitianga, who were today visited by the—

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The average age of the air ambulance fleet is 29 years old. That hasn’t happened overnight. The previous Government ought to have put its money where its mouth was, but what I do want to say is that every district health board needs to have a sustainable, high quality ambulance service, no matter how big or small the population that they support.

Angie Warren-Clark: How has the Minister personally intervened to improve engagement with local communities?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not a Minister who will shy away from difficult conversations. That’s why I met with a group of regional mayors last month to listen to their concerns and reassure them about aspects of the process. Because those relationships are important to me, those conversations with the mayors are ongoing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would he be concerned to learn that at least one helicopter trust is already reporting a reluctance by traditional benefactors to donate to them due to the possibility that the service could be operated by an overseas provider, given that, if that happened, it would almost certainly result in a greater cost to the Crown?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am concerned that we have a quality air ambulance service that delivers improved clinical outcomes for patients into the future.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In that case, can he commit to the people of regional New Zealand that the air ambulance service timeliness and quality will not be diminished in the new contracting framework?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The new contracting framework is precisely designed to improve clinical outcomes for patients.

Tertiary Education—Trades Training and Fees-free Policy

8. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about the need for training in trades occupations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I have seen reports that New Zealand is facing a significant shortfall of construction-related workers. It’s expected that 56,000 additional construction-related workers will be needed over the next five years. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, one of the industry’s biggest training organisations, has said it’s on track to produce around a third of that number. Clearly, we need to do a lot more to attract people into trade training, and support them through it. That is what this Government is committed to.

Marja Lubeck: What action has the Government taken to date to make it easier for young people to train in the trades?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Our fees-free policy has already made choosing a trades qualification, either on-job or pre-job, much more affordable. Over half of the students and trainees who benefit from fees free are outside of the universities. Previously, employers and apprentices had to pay training and assessment fees to their industry training organisation. Now, for all eligible apprentices and programmes, those fees are covered under the fees-free policy for up to two years. We’re reducing the cost burden for training for the future building and construction workforce.

Marja Lubeck: Does he consider that the fees-free policy is sustainable?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, it’s financially and educationally very sustainable. We cannot burden future generations with the cost of tertiary education or block access, when we need to incentivise them to get the right skills and training to succeed in a rapidly changing world. Fees fee has reduced student loan borrowing by up to $140 million in the first calendar quarter of this year, with 25,000 fewer students having to borrow for their fees. That includes thousands undertaking vocational courses at polytechnics and private training establishments.

Marine Species Protection—Priorities

9. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: What are her current priorities for the conservation portfolio in the marine space?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Marine protected areas are vital to protect important habitats and feeding areas for marine mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates. So one of my priorities is to consider and make decisions on the recommendations of the South-East Marine Protection Forum, to better protect marine life and habitats on the South Canterbury and Otago coast, and I’m determined to see real progress on reducing the bycatch of protected marine mammals and seabirds. I’m committed to progressing Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari in the Hauraki Gulf—something which the previous National Government stalled—and, along with Minister Nash, I’m accelerating work to improve the protection of the endangered Hector’s dolphin.

Sarah Dowie: When will she be successful in her advocacy to her ministerial colleagues, given that she has been reported as saying that reducing bycatch rates are “top of mind”, as are overcoming the so-called technical difficulties, and putting a stop to the delay in the roll-out of cameras on commercial fishing vessels?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the member well knows, it’s the Minister of Fisheries who is leading the work on cameras. But the Minister inherited a number of technical and administrative difficulties. We want cameras to work.

Sarah Dowie: Does the Minister acknowledge that our endangered great white sharks require protection, and will she join with me to protect them and the safety of Stewart Islanders?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member for Invercargill, Liz Craig, has been very active in raising with me the concerns of Stewart Island residents—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member might want to start her answer again.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I recognise the seriousness of the Stewart Islanders’ concerns about shark cage diving, but with respect to the member’s bill, it is premature. I’m waiting for the Court of Appeal’s decision as to whether the current law allows the Department of Conservation to issue permits, and the extent to which the department can take public health and safety into account.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister describe how many times between 2014 and 2018, when this issue was seriously of concern down there in Stewart Island, the member asking the question made a submission to her department?

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ll listen to the member.

Hon Paula Bennett: You certainly reflect on us not giving—

SPEAKER: No, no—I want you to make a point of order.

Hon Paula Bennett: OK—the Minister has no responsibility for what happened between 2014 and 2018.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I’ll hear the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking the Minister for a record of submissions to her department on a very serious issue, and for that record that Minister has responsibility.

Sarah Dowie: In that answer, will it reflect verbal submissions?

SPEAKER: Will it reflect what?

Sarah Dowie: Verbal—oral.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think I’m in a position to give an answer, but it seems to me that Ms Dowie has indicated that she’d like the Minister to give an answer, which is not quite what Ms Bennett indicated. So I think I’ll stick with the status quo and ask Eugenie Sage to give an answer, notwithstanding the point of order.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t have that information with me, but I can provide it in writing subsequently.

Sarah Dowie: Isn’t the Minister’s track record one of deference and stagnation, and when will she stand up to her ministerial coalition colleagues on behalf of threatened marine species?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: This Government has been in place for six months. On the issue of shark cage diving, which the member reportedly has concerns about, the issue arose in 2014. The previous Government had an opportunity to fix it and they didn’t.

Sarah Dowie: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order. The member might want to explain to us what “deference” means. It’s a new word to me.

Sarah Dowie: Being slow.

SPEAKER: Being what?

Sarah Dowie: Being slow.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. It’s all right—we’ve had lots of new words. Thank you to the member; she clearly understands that area better than I do.

Sarah Dowie: I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that would provide best practice regulations for shark cage diving activities to be set down as member’s order of the day No. 1.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is.

Sarah Dowie: Has she discussed with her ministerial coalition colleagues a draft bill entitled the “Marine Mammals Protection Seismic Surveying Bill”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There has been some policy work done on formalising the currently voluntary process in the territorial sea around marine seismic surveys. I would note that in 2014 there was a suggestion, when the code of conduct was reviewed, to the previous Minister of Conservation—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —well, actually, it was 2015—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s a point of order.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: The member’s question was very narrow; it has been answered. There is no need for the post-amble.

SPEAKER: The member knows well that the sole judge of whether a question has been answered or not is me, and it is not ever to be the subject of a point of order, and—well, I’m going to ask the member whether he was aware of those Speakers’ rulings.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’m very aware of the Speakers’ rulings. We take a different view, but that’s fine.

SPEAKER: OK, well—

Sarah Dowie: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister was interrupted. Had the Minister completed—

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Can I just correct. The year was 2013, and, as part of the review of the Māui’s dolphin threat management plan, the former Minister of Conservation agreed that a process should be initiated to regulate seismic surveying by incorporating the code of conduct in regulations made under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. What happened? Nothing.

Sarah Dowie: What types of measures does she envisage would be included in the so-called marine mammals protection (seismic surveying) bill to enhance the protection of marine mammals?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member appears unaware that in the territorial sea there is a voluntary code of conduct. There is no formal permit process. If that was formalised, it would give certainty to the industry that they were doing legal activities and it would give certainty to the public that marine mammals were being protected.

Energy and Resources, Minister—Statements on Industry Consultation and Gas Reserves

10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Jonathan Young: When she stated on Q+A that she met with Methanex before their 12 April announcement and has now corrected that to say she didn’t, and when answering questions on her behalf, her colleague Andrew Little said he met with them on 12 April but Methanex says he didn’t, when will she admit to the people of New Zealand that she has dismally failed to consult the petrochemical sector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I completely reject the premise of the questioner’s question. My colleague Andrew Little said that Methanex were present at a meeting on 12 April that he attended in Taranaki, and that is correct.

Jonathan Young: When she stated on Q+A that New Zealand’s seven to 10 years of gas reserves is probably a pessimistic figure, why would the New Zealand public believe her, and what is her basis for making that statement?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Every year, there is the Energy in New Zealand publication, which puts out the forecast reserves of gas. The last quality assured forecast that we have is the 2017 figures. That is currently at around 10 years. The 2018 figures are currently being quality assured and will be released in the coming months. I have no reason to believe that they will be at the pessimistic end of the number that I used on Q+A.

Jonathan Young: Will the Minister release the names of all of those people who attended the meeting on 12 April that Andrew Little was delegated to attend?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A number of people attended that meeting. It was advertised and people were issued invites. If we’re able to collate that information, we would have no problem releasing it, given that it was a public meeting. I will need to consult with my colleague to see whether it is possible to collate that information.

Pike River Mine Re-entry—Progress

11. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: What progress has been made on the Pike River re-entry project?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): I’m very pleased to convey yet more good news from this Government to the House. Two weeks ago, I visited the mine site and, with family representatives, personally entered the mine portal. This week, technical experts, along with family representatives, have been meeting in Greymouth to work on a draft plan for re-entry into the Pike River drift. This meeting has been a positive experience and good progress is being made. I expect the agency’s recommendation on a proposed approach to re-entry will be presented to me in six to eight weeks’ time.

Dr Duncan Webb: What is the time line for the drift re-entry project from here?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once I receive the agency’s recommendation, I will consider their proposed approach, and, if I believe this is sound and safe—and subject to the advice I get from my independent adviser—I will approve it for more detailed planning. To some extent, re-entry will be season dependent, because of barometric pressures. All things going well, the re-entry process could be able to start before the end of the year.

Dr Duncan Webb: How have the Pike River families been involved in this process?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The coalition Government has been clear about the genuine involvement of the Pike River families in this project. As Bernie Monk stated yesterday, “hand on heart, I can’t see why it’s taken eight years to get to this stage that we’ve done in four days.” It is positive, after years of the previous Government saying it could not be done, that it turns out it can be done, can be done safely, and with the full blessing of the families involved.

Regional Economic Development, Minister—Statements

12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all of his statements in regards to the Provincial Growth Fund; if so, will he guarantee that none of the projects funded will have outcomes considered “fanciful”?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): To the first part of the question, yes; and in so far as the word “fanciful” is used, it’s been misapplied in a form that’s inversely related to my ministerial temperament.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does it comply with the Standing Orders to answer in riddles?

SPEAKER: And it’s part of the responsibility of the Opposition to solve them.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said last week, “I realise that we have the Westminster system. After the next election, if I don’t get what I want, we’re going to have the Axminister system.”, who specifically was he threatening?

Hon SHANE JONES: In the life of the first citizen of the provinces, there is great hyperbole and theatrical language from time to time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think threatening officials is a laughing matter?

Hon SHANE JONES: Both officials and members of the House are aware of how seriously I take my role as New Zealand’s first citizen of the provinces. So, from time to time, the member is reading far too much into the language of a colourful, hard-working, rhetorical advocate.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think that the Cabinet Manual, specifically paragraph 3.22(f), which says, “Ministers should exercise a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with officials. Ministers must respect the political neutrality of the public service …”, applies to him?

Hon SHANE JONES: In deference to the Cabinet Manual, I can assure you, unlike other parts of my life, I express and practise great fidelity.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said, in relation to the Wairoa mayor, “I felt pretty stink that I, as the provincial champion, couldn’t even deliver for him.”, how much did he think the responsibility for the lack of delivery lay with him?

Hon SHANE JONES: When I met with the Mayor of Wairoa, he described me as the first Minister since the days of Helen Clark to have ever shown that quality of affection and attention to Wairoa.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware that there is a fine line between being a bit of a character and being a joke, and which side of the line is he on?

Hon SHANE JONES: I could not describe it better than the New Zealand Herald, who have described me as part jester, part genius, and in 2020 they’ll see the latter and not the former.

Bills

Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

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

This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Tamaoho, signed at Mangatangi Marae on 30 April 2017. The deed of settlement settles all the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Tamaoho.

Ngāti Tamaoho is one of the Waikato-Tainui - affiliated Waiohua groups, located within Tāmaki-makau-rau. Their interests are centred on the Manukau Harbour and extend to include the Franklin District, Hunua Ranges, Āwhitu Peninsula, Waikato wetlands, and central Auckland. I acknowledge the work of the Ngāti Tamaoho negotiators and the governance entity, the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust Board. I also acknowledge the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson; Government agencies; and local authorities for their contributions to the bill. I also thank the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has done an excellent job in progressing this bill.

The proposed bill gives effect to those elements of the deed which require statute. The bill was referred to the committee on 6 July 2017. The committee received two written submissions, both in support of the bill—one from Ngāti Tamaoho Trust and the other from the Auckland Council. This was the first time in the Treaty settlement process that no submission in opposition to a settlement bill was received. Consequently, there was no requirement for public hearings to be held.

The committee’s commentary on the bill focuses on the settlement matters discussed during consideration of the bill, and, after careful consideration, the committee has recommended the bill proceed with two minor technical amendments. This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stage of settling the historical claims of Ngāti Tamaoho. I intend to talk in more detail in the third reading when we fully celebrate this settlement. Until then, I commend this bill to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā rā koutou nā e tō tātou matua tipuna. Tēnei te mihi o ngā uri o Tainui waka Ngāti Tamaoho, te Maungaroa Mauka, Waikato Awa. E ngā iwi o Ngāti Tamaoho tū mai ngā marae o Whātapaka, Mangatangi, Ngā Hau e Whā. Nau mai haere mai o te Whare Pāremata. E mihi nei, e tangi nei koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira koutou e tūmanako ake nei, koutou e hāpai nei, ka mihi, ka mihi, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tīhei mauriora.

[Greetings to you, our ancestor. This is the greeting of the descendants of the Tainui Canoe, Ngāti Tamaoho of Maungaroa Mountain, of the Waikato River. The people of Ngāti Tamaoho, may your marae of Whātapaka, Mangatangi, and Ngā Hau e Whā continue to stand strong. Welcome to this House of Parliament. I greet and lament those long departed special people who had such hopes and furthered the cause; I acknowledge you and say let us leave the deceased to the deceased and us to ourselves, let there be life.]

It is indeed my honour to be able to stand and speak in the second reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I had the pleasure as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the 51st Parliament to consider this bill in the first stages. I just want to acknowledge the iwi of Ngāti Tamaoho and also their surrounding iwi, because of the incredible honour that they actually gave each other and the mana, particularly when we look at the history of this particular Treaty settlement.

When you observe the conduct of an iwi that has been labelled rebels through their history, and when you hear of the incredible issues that came out of that, and coming to the Māori Affairs Committee to submit—that there is something that really does make an important contribution to the way that these Treaty settlements are actually developed and have developed and the processes involved. Ngāti Tamaoho has a proud history of working alongside their whanaunga and with the advent of the arrival of the Pākehā as the new settlers. I think the important thing, though, is that Ngāti Tamaoho actually had their lands taken from them, and these lands were some of the most fertile and some of the best coastal lands, actually, in New Zealand.

So when we look at this, this bill now—and particularly getting to this particular stage of the second reading—is a huge step forward. It ensures the future of the iwi where all of that land and taonga were actually cruelly taken in the 1860s. During the course of the hearings, Ngāti Tamaoho also expressed their frustrations with the length of time it took to get to that particular part of the settlement. Having gone through the settlement process during my own iwi’s processes and development, that is indeed a frustration that is very concerning moving through, but at least we got to this point.

That said, in this particular one, and particularly the area, or rohe, of Ngāti Tamaoho, the complexities here—and particularly when we look at situations like every other Treaty settlement—are the overlapping claims. So navigating that by the Crown—for example, what came out of the submissions was the situation with Te Ākitai Waiōhua and then Ngāti Te Ata, the whanaunga iwi of Ngāti Tamaoho, who actually took some real issues with the aspects of the settlement, particularly in regards to overlapping claims.

Equally, there are the recent issues raised by Ngāti Tamaoho to the Māori Affairs Committee as well, which was over the Papakura Defence Force lands. This really did highlight the complexity that I’ve just referred to in the delaying of the settlement itself.

Often, the Crown can be left with Solomon’s choice when it comes to who has mana over what in which area. Thus, whilst the concerns of Ngāti Tamaoho are acknowledged, what came out of it is that the use of tikanga and the meetings between those whanaunga iwi—what came out of it was a joint redress as the end result. I really do acknowledge the Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira that are here in the House today. In saying that, particularly with those overlapping claims and the cultural redress, I urge you to continue using those tikanga-based processes—whanaungatanga, particularly—to ensure that that continues around those redress properties.

We received and considered two submissions. One was from the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust, and the other from the Auckland Council֫—keeping in mind, too, that both of those submissions actually supported the bill. But there were a number of critical features with this particular settlement. The commercial redress has been of some concern with Ngāti Tamaoho—their settlement properties, both shared and exclusive, which gave the iwi access to most of the lucrative real estate market in New Zealand. So these lease-back properties—the former Ōtara police station, the Great South Road commercial property, and the school sites—will enable a regular income to accrue to Tamaoho as they manage the growth of their pūtea.

The other part, too, is that looking at other cultural redress properties in this particular settlement—Clarks Creek, Karaka, and Waitete Pā. Those particular redress properties, also along with the Hunua Falls, in partnership—and this was the real whanaungatanga, particularly with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whanaunga, and Ngāti Koheriki. So that cultural redress package will begin a long process of rebuilding the cultural footprint of Ngāti Tamaoho. I think the important part of this, though, as part of the settlement, is that the vesting will not be carried out until all of those iwi have actually settled.

There is actually no settlement that would fully recompense an iwi for its loss, but a full recognition of the loss of acknowledgment and a proper apology from the Crown cannot be undervalued. This was also a very, very important part of this particular settlement. I think the other part, too, was that the very, very small amount of submissions really did reflect the fact—and particularly when we had the overlapping claims—of how important kotahitanga—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just draw—I’m sorry to interrupt, but could people have their conversations out in the lobbies? Continue.

NUK KORAKO: Just acknowledging the kotahitanga that actually went on during the negotiation process between the whanaunga iwi that were actually associated, and particularly around the overlapping claims.

This is an important day today for Ngāti Tamaoho as this second reading passes through the House. Again, I acknowledge the important contributions that each side has made, and also the work of the Māori Affairs Committee as well. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the work that we do continually to ensure that these Treaty settlements actually stay to our process of tikanga, and also acknowledging whanaungatanga and kotahitanga. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. E tū tautoko ahau tēnei pire; tēnei pire whakatau nei i ngā kerēme o Ngāti Tamaoho. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Tamaoho, tēnā koutou Waikato taniwha rau, he piko he taniwha, he piko he taniwha. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātou te hunga wairua ki a rātou; āpiti hono, tātai hono tātou te kanohi ora e pai nei ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand in support of this bill; this bill which seeks to settle the claims of Ngāti Tamaoho. Greetings to you Ngāti Tamaoho, welcome to the many taniwha of Waikato, for at each bend of the river, there is a taniwha. Connections having been made, let the dead remain with the dead; connections having been made, may we, the living, remain well together. Greetings to one and all.]

I’m delighted to be able to add my contribution to this settlement bill for Ngāti Tamaoho at its second reading, and can I endorse the contribution made by the former chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, Tūtehounuku—Nuk—Korako. I’m very privileged to have taken over that role in this 52nd Parliament, which this bill straddles.

This bill was introduced and had its first reading back in, I believe, around July last year, so it got carried over into this new Parliament. To our surprise, as a committee, when we were going through the order of business, we found that there were only two submitters and they were both in support of the bill and they both didn’t want to be heard. So that then indeed was a first for this Parliament, actually, to have a Treaty settlement bill, yeah, with such broad support from the submitters. Few as they were, they were very significant. They were obviously the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust Board and the Auckland Council, who also play quite a key role in the ongoing management of certain aspects of the settlement.

So I just want to touch on some of the key things. Whilst we didn’t meet Ngāti Tamaoho, we were able to glean a lot of the issues through the advice that we received as a committee. What stuck out, to me, was just the complexity and the difficulty that we face in the Tāmaki-makau-rau area, just with the sheer number of different iwi and hapū groups that all share overlapping interests in the Auckland metropolitan area. There are 14 iwi and hapū groups which overlap and neighbour Ngāti Tamaoho—one we’re actually also considering through this House at the moment with the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki settlement. So there are very complex negotiations and discussions and compromises that have to go on to actually achieve these settlements.

So I would just like to salute Ngāti Tamaoho. You know, they’ve had to make a lot of concessions to enable this settlement to advance to this point, and that was evidenced by some of their concessions over historical accounts, with their whanaungas, Te Ākitai Waiōhua, and also there was quite fierce opposition from Ngāti Te Ata to the majority of cultural and commercial redress properties which were offered to Ngāti Tamaoho.

As we are facing in so many of our settlements, the Crown, ideally, would want to see these overlapping interests resolved between the respective claimant groups, but, unfortunately, that doesn’t always turn out to be the case, and, therefore, the Minister has to ultimately make a decision, and that’s what happened in the case of Ngāti Tamaoho. The settlement package was ultimately agreed to by way of a deed of settlement. Certainly, Ngāti Tamaoho wouldn’t be entirely happy with what was achieved, but, again, they have implored to the committee that they want to advance this settlement through as quickly as possible. They’re anxious for the bill to pass, and so that’s what we took note of as a committee.

Some of the other key issues that arose were just some technical issues around the Hunua scenic reserve and the Auckland Council’s role as the administering body. The Hunua scenic reserve will be vested in four iwi, which include Ngāti Tamaoho and three others: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Koheriki, and Ngāti Whanaunga—excuse me, if from my scribbling of the names I may not have read them properly. But, again, these are innovations.

These are scenic reserves, which are reserves under the Reserves Act. For those who are familiar with the Hunua area, it’s a very, very beautiful part of the country, and the Auckland Council is the administering body. So we had, as a committee, made amendments to the bill just to clarify the division of powers and responsibilities between the owners of the reserve, which will be the four iwi and Auckland Council in regard to the processing of applications for interests or the creation of interests over the reserve property. So that was one technical aspect, but I think it was very important that we were able to clarify that within clause 52 of the bill.

The other matter which came to light subsequent to the submissions that we received was some concern from Ngāti Tamaoho around the New Zealand Defence Force land at Papakura, which is included as commercial redress. That property is to be vested in Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki as a deferred selection. There were some concerns which were raised subsequent to their written submission, and they were dealt with by the Minister. So we didn’t actually play a part in trying to resolve those issues. It was sort of beyond the scope and we had already received and processed the submissions. But, ultimately, the Minister made decisions in respect of that matter. Again, it may not have been to Ngāti Tamaoho’s liking, but what we are doing here with these Treaty settlements is implementing what has been agreed to in the deed of settlement, and we are putting through legislation that gives effect to certain aspects in these deeds of settlement. The Papakura property, as I understand it, was dealt with in the deed, and it was agreed to between the parties involved, and we are just merely giving effect to that—giving effect to those measures that require legislative passage.

So there is a lot. It might be a very small hapū, Ngāti Tamaoho, but like every Treaty settlement, there are a multitude of complex issues that arise. But it is fascinating, as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to get a wider understanding of not only the history but also just the sheer number and the respective histories of all of the many, many iwi and hapū groups that are involved in that great region.

So we have completed our task as a committee. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister and fellow members of the committee and the task that we’ve undertaken to bring the bill to this point and, without further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora tātau.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill in its second reading. Of course, this relates to an area in my electorate of Hunua, but, much more pertinent to me, the marae for the people of Ngāti Tamaoho is actually very close to where I live. I just want to acknowledge some of the rangatira, but, in particular, Dennis Kirkwood, who’s the chief negotiator and a great person, and also Hero Potini, who I see regularly at events in my electorate. But I know there are many others involved in the settlement, and I do pay homage to them. This is a great position to be in—that the House is bringing this bill and progressing it through—because, as Rino Tirikatene, the previous speaker, noted, it’s not a huge iwi but is important none the less, and this bill seeks to address a wrong that we’ve heard about so many times before.

I always find it rather heartbreaking reading the stories about what went on with the various iwi around New Zealand, where we are trying to come to a peaceful end to those pieces of history that many of us do not want to think about and consider. But, in particular, with the Ngāti Tamaoho area, it was interesting that this was an iwi that was actually very supportive of the Crown. It actually undertook a lot of commercial development with the Crown prior to the 1840s and, as part of that, sold a lot of their land.

In fact, it came to an agreement with the Crown that there would be 400 acres that would be protected for them and for public purposes. Then it went through a process after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi where the iwi actually sold land in Remuera. Part of that was that one-tenth of that land, or some of the land that they owned, was to be held back for the benefit of the iwi. But it all sort of came to a head in 1863, when the Crown—as it did in many places—asked Ngāti Tamaoho to actually swear an oath of allegiance. Without sufficient time, the iwi could not comply with that request, and from then on were deemed to be against the Crown, which, from all accounts, was not actually the case. After the Waikato Wars, they were then deemed to be ineligible for any compensation. So as a result, by 1900—roughly—they were virtually landless.

So I’ve watched this iwi over the years that I’ve lived in that area and, obviously, they’ve been working for a very long process for redress. It’s interesting to note that some of the areas that they will be given some control over, which are very, very familiar to me, are Āwhitu Peninsula; the Drury-Hingaia area, just north of Karaka; the Karaka Stream, very near where I live; Mauku and all these areas; and, of course—very significantly—the Hunua Falls, which are going to be co-managed. Again, that is a place of huge scenic interest in my electorate, but it is also very significant for many people in many other ways. Also, there is the settlement round the Papakura Defence Force land, which is obviously a very significant commercial opportunity, and they have been given joint custody or stewardship over that area.

So I’d just like to say that I’m very appreciative of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee have done. I acknowledge the rangatira of the iwi, and I’m just glad to see this bill progressing through the House as quickly as it may do. Thank you very much.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka nui aku mihi aroha ki a koutou, ngā whānau whānui o te iwi o Ngāti Tamaoho, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka mihi ahau hoki ki aku hoa kei te tū hoki ki te kōrero mō tēnei kaupapa i roto i te Whare nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To all of you from different walks of life and cultures, distinguished guests, I greet you all. I offer a warm welcome to you, affiliates of the extended family of Ngāti Tamaoho, greetings. I also acknowledge my colleagues who have stood to speak to this matter before us in this House. Greetings to one and all.]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am very privileged to be able to stand here on behalf of New Zealand First and speak on the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill in its second reading. I’d just like to make note of the many connections. I’m from Ngāpuhi in the North. There are many connections with Waikato and Ngāpuhi, and I’d like to make note of Reitū and Reipae, two Waikato princesses who ventured into the North.

Unfortunately, we didn’t get to meet Ngāti Tamaoho in the Māori Affairs Committee when they made their submission. So I think in that part of the process—for me, having been involved in politics for only a short six months—to not have them to meet face to face is a disappointment for me, but I am very pleased that we are able to progress their settlement and to now be at the second reading today. It took over four years after the deed was signed until the first reading—now over a year ago—so this second reading really couldn’t come quickly enough. So I hope from this point on we are able to progress and reach the final stages of the settlement for Ngāti Tamaoho, because they have been waiting far too long.

I’d like to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and the work he has done previously in progressing this settlement. One of the things that he talked about in his first reading speech was reflecting on the history of the relationship between the Crown and the settling iwi, Ngāti Tamaoho. It is a long history of gradual but constant land loss and of the conflicts that severely impacted on Ngāti Tamaoho, and we should always keep those conflicts and the degradation and that loss well in our minds so that we never return to that space. The Crown also, he mentioned, hopes to restore its honour and alleviate what can only be described as an acute sense of grievance. Those are just some of the ways that we can enable healing and moving forward.

I’d just like to talk a little bit about Ngāti Tamaoho and their rohe that extends—it’s quite a large tract of land, and very fertile, amazing land. We’ve built much of our city upon it in Tāmaki-makau-rau—the isthmus to south to the Waikato River and to the Whangamarino wetlands. It extends from the west coast to the Hauraki Gulf and the Firth of Thames. There are interests also concentrated in the Manukau lowlands, Āwhitu Peninsula, Papakura, the Hunua Ranges, Mangatangi, and, of course, Whangamarino.

This is an amazing tract of land. It includes land that is rich and fertile. The area around Pukekohe, which is really known as New Zealand’s food basket—those rich soils are growing much of our food today, and, unfortunately, we see lots of that land now being cut up for housing, and that too is a shame. Remuera—some of the most expensive real estate in the country—once was, but still really is, a Ngāti Tamaoho area.

Acknowledging this tribe today, this iwi, and seeing the submissions that they made—two submissions only—to the Māori Affairs Committee, Ngāti Tamaoho Trust Board endorse this bill in its entirety. The trust has carefully reviewed the bill and considers that it gives effect to both the intent and the detail of the deed of settlement. They feel that completion of the claims negotiation process—that is, adoption of the bill—will enable them to move beyond this period of history into a more positive context. They state in their submission that any further delay or other problems through the legislative process would undermine what they have been able to achieve. So it is important that we do move swiftly on this to give them completion so that they too can move forward.

Noting also the complexity of the overlapping claims in the Tāmaki-makau-rau area and the Defence Force lands, and what Auckland Council said in their supporting submission—they sought two minor technical amendments to clause 52 of the bill. The purpose of the amendments are twofold, really: to clarify the administrative process the council must follow for the transfer of the Hunua scenic reserve land to four iwi—and we’ve heard them talked about in Rino Tirikatene’s speech today—and to disapply section 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, which currently allows the Minister of the administering body to grant a concession in respect of the Hunua Falls scenic reserve. The land in the falls area will remain a scenic reserve, with Auckland Council being the administering body, as if under section 28 of the Reserves Act 1977. The bill prescribes that as long as the council remains that administering body, the regional parks management plan in force will continue to apply. The transfer of the Hunua Falls property will take effect on the latest of the settlements for the four participating iwi, and it’s still not clear when that will occur.

In summary, I’d just like to mention how Ngāti Tamaoho are able to move on and what are the benefits of this settlement for them. One of the negotiators for Ngāti Tamaoho says that it is a chance to share their history, and that will be one of the biggest benefits of their settlement. Dennis Kirkwood said, about a year ago, that they were already making their mark on the landscape. They unveiled a plaque at Patumāhoe, near Pukekohe, at the site of what was once a very significant village and urupā. He said that was an initiative from the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, and their urging of the city’s mana whenua iwi to create signage spelling out the association of the people with that land.

I think that’s an important way that we can keep our history alive so that all that come to that area are aware of more than just the current situation there. They can see and read about the history, as well.

He believes that they need more awareness other than just perhaps the odd street sign. Although street signs are important—trying to get the old names back on some of those lands before they are, in Auckland’s case, cut up and then renamed.

So, in conclusion, I would just like to thank all of those members from the Māori Affairs Committee who have worked in this Parliament and the previous Parliament on progressing the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill through the House. With that, I’d just like to say congratulations to the iwi and all the very best. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. Ka nui te mihi atu ki ngā whānau whānui o Ngāti Tamoho.

[Thank you. May I offer a warm welcome to the extended family of Ngāti Tamaoho.]

I’m pleased to stand to take a call on the second reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. As the previous speakers have said, Ngāti Tamaoho is a Waikato-Tainui hapū, and thereto are also beneficiaries of both the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 and the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.

Ngati Tamaoho’s marae are represented on the Te Kauhanganui of Tainui—of the Waikato-Tainui parliament. This is a great moment for them. As many of our previous speakers have said, they are a small hapū, but they have been able to get a voice on the Kauhanganui, and that is a very good thing to have three voices there.

Like all other claims that have come through this House, I see the history of the Treaty claims process and how many of the iwi were displaced and were made virtually landless. Ngāti Tamaoho in the 1900s weren’t an exception to that. Many of them have experienced, over time, severe social and economic marginalisation and deplorable housing conditions. I see that this bill is a step towards helping them to recover economically from those atrocities. Like all other Māori tamariki, they were marginalised in schools and segregated, and, like my father, smacked for even contemplating or even uttering Te Reo Māori in the schools. So, therefore, I say today, as we start moving forward and a lot of things have happened to do with legislation around Te Reo Māori, that that is not the case today.

The settlement of Pākehā in the Ngāti Tamaoho rohe has resulted in a number of environmental issues, and there’s been little control over stopping that from happening, especially around introduced flora and fauna in the rohe. But through this bill there has been opportunity for the iwi to—we have letters of introduction to the various ministries. But I’m sure that those letters of introduction are way after the fact of the relationship-building between Ngāti Tamaoho and those ministries already happening prior to those letters of introduction.

This settlement provides for financial and commercial redress of $10.3 million and a cultural revitalisation fund of $590,000. Some may say that’s just a drop in the bucket; I say it’s a good drop in the bucket. It gives them an ability to leverage that amount of financial redress and to be able to move forward. I know of other iwi that have had less and have come out and been able to grow their investments through wise counsel from a number of their people, and from external consultation as well.

My speech today is short for the second reading. It is short because a lot of what has been said in this House I do tautoko. I think that the Māori Affairs Committee does an amazing job with these Treaty settlement bills. This is another one of the Hon Chris Finlayson’s mahi—the work that he did in the 51st Parliament. And again, I take my hat off to the Hon Chris Finlayson because he has, I believe, gone down in the history of this and previous parliaments as being one of the best Treaty negotiation Ministers to have ever graced this House. So it is without hesitation that I too join with everybody in this House speaking to this bill and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too rise to speak, on behalf of the Green Party, in support of the second reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill and acknowledge, as always, the sense of responsibility and privilege to be able to speak on settlement bills in this House but also, more importantly, the sacrifice of the hapū in getting to this point and how long the journey has been for them to get here today—one step closer to the end of this settlement process.

On the second reading, it is our tradition in the Greens to talk about the process and the submissions in the select committee as well as restating some of the history, because it is so rarely that New Zealanders get to hear that history of what has happened in our country. So I will take a moment to imperfectly retell some of that story. Part of the process of colonisation in this country is that many New Zealanders, myself included, will hear the words “Ngāti Tamaoho” and they won’t know where those people are from. So I’m going to take a moment to try and explain, as well as my geography allows, where the people of Ngāti Tamaoho live and where they are from.

There’s a hapū that extends from the northern Waikato - South Auckland area, and they’ve lived across that rohe for centuries. That extends from the north of the Tāmaki isthmus to south of the Waikato River and Whangamarino wetlands, and from the west coast right across to the Hauraki Gulf and the Firth of Thames. So, as has been mentioned by other speakers, in describing the breadth and extent of that rohe, we understand also the fertility of that land and the wealth that exists on that land now, and have a sense of the pain that must be felt from the people of Ngāti Tamaoho from the displacement from that land and that wealth that exists there now. As they described in their submission, as a hapū, they were a numerous iwi with extensive pā throughout these areas that now no longer exist.

In their submission, they noted the comments from the historian David Armstrong, who helped them with the researching of their claim, and I want to quote that directly. Their submission was short because it had been a very long process to get to this point. I think it is meaningful, this message, and it should be shared. So in the words of the historian, he said, “I doubt that any other iwi in New Zealand suffered as grievously at the hands of their Treaty partner (as Tamaoho). In my long experience as a Treaty historian I have certainly encountered no other iwi who were treated as harshly as this.” Of course, it’s not a competition of who is harmed the most, but it does seem really important in this House to acknowledge the depth of loss and pain and wrong of the State towards Ngāti Tamaoho.

As a bit of a description of some tiny little bit of what happened to them—so, after the signing of Te Tiriti, Ngāti Tamaoho sought new economic opportunities and sold some of their land in Remuera. At that time, it was a sales arrangement where there was an expectation that one-tenth of that land would be reserved for public purposes and for the benefit of Māori. The Crown failed to do this. The Crown purchasing activities after that created tensions between iwi that led to armed conflict, and this is a pattern we hear commonly across the country.

Then, in the 1840s and 1850s, Ngāti Tamaoho rangatira were recognised as being friendly to Pākehā, and they were quite successful and engaged in that new economy at the time. And then—so shortly after that; in the 1860s, I think—the Crown decided that Māori in South Auckland, in this rohe, would be required to swear an oath of allegiance or vacate their settlements. They didn’t give the people of Ngāti Tamaoho time to be able to consider that demand. Despite there being a history of peaceful engagement with the Crown, the Crown troops burnt buildings and looted properties at Pōkeno, and then labelled most of Ngāti Tamaoho as rebels and evicted them from their settlements and confiscated most of their remaining lands—lands which we, as Pākehā in this country, have benefited significantly from the development of.

That is just a tiny part of that history of colonisation and abuse of the people in that area. I want to acknowledge that this settlement process is meant to create a platform to move forward, for them to have redress and acknowledgment and an apology. But I also want to acknowledge that in their submission they note that their experience of negotiating this has been painful but that they set themselves key criteria for that negotiation to resolve as quickly as possible, to be able to have the new future for themselves and not to undermine relationships with other iwi and hapū. In an area where there are many iwi and hapū, that was no small feat. It has been spoken about many times already in this debate—the incredible examples that they set in doing this.

I understand this is the first Treaty settlement bill that has come to the House without any opposing submissions. Ngāti Tamaoho put so much effort into resolving the concerns with other hapū and iwi through tikanga processes outside of this formal settlement. They again, I believe, should be acknowledged for that, and I want to commend them for their spirit of kotahitanga and recognise that many of the tensions that often come up are an impact of Crown actions and the process of colonisation that in all too many ways go unchallenged by the settlement process. We still, sadly, often end up with accounts of history that are limited by the prescribed language of the Crown, which to me seems, unavoidably, another act of colonisation.

So I do want to acknowledge that this is imperfect, but Ngāti Tamaoho have done an incredible job for their people in this environment to be able to create a platform for their people to move forward, which has resulted in a settlement, a vesting of sites, the changing of 21 geographic place names, and statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition for 43 places that will enable their ongoing participation in Resource Management Act processes that give life to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as well as the financial and commercial redress. So I’m pleased to finish now, to move one step closer to the final settlement for these people.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to take this call on the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I’m really pleased to have this opportunity to contribute in the second reading of this very significant bill. As soon as I saw that I had this opportunity to speak in the second reading of this bill, a very interesting experience came to my mind, and this is from when I was very new here, in 2014.

At that time, some of my caucus colleagues were taking photos of MPs with special interests in some specific areas. Of course, along with my interest in science, business, and other areas, I also have an interest in history and culture. Coming from a country that has a very long history and very rich culture, and coming to New Zealand, which has, again, a very rich and very unique history, I joined my colleagues to be part of that photo with a specific interest in Māori policy. Obviously, the photo went out, and in a couple of weeks my colleague Nuk Korako came to me and said, “Parmjeet, I’m getting a huge number of calls about you.” He said, “People are asking ‘Who is this new Māori MP, and what is her iwi?’ ”, and I said to him, “I’m available to be adopted.” So it’s great to call New Zealand home and it’s great to have this opportunity to contribute in the second reading of this bill.

This is not like any other bill. For other bills, of course, we see a legislative gap and we come up with a bill and bring that before the House, but this bill is a result of a big force from Ngāti Tamaoho—it’s because of their determination. I can imagine the amount of work that the iwi has done for us to realise that this is a very important issue and it needs to be addressed.

Within the National Party caucus, I have to say that the Hon Chris Finlayson has been hugely passionate about Treaty settlements and I want to give him credit for that. I also want to acknowledge the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little. I acknowledge the current and the past chair and committee members.

I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I’ve seen that this bill received two submissions, and both submissions supported this bill. The good thing is that this bill has come back before the House recommending only some minor and technical changes, and the number of submissions that this bill received actually reflects the support that this bill has to go through the House. In my experience, when there is an issue that is controversial, we get a big number of submissions, but something like this, where everybody agrees—of course, the relevant iwi agree, and the wider communities agree—we don’t get that many submissions. But these two submissions were really solid submissions, and I want to thank those submitters for their contribution.

This bill is to also provide financial redress and a cultural cultivation fund. This bill is also to acknowledge wrongdoings in the past, so it’s a great bill, that is to bring this Treaty settlement between the Crown and the iwi. I really hope that the passing of this bill will help the iwi unlock their economic potential. It’s great to see that this bill is receiving cross-party support, so I’m really looking forward, just like everyone else, to this bill passing through the House. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, otirā e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu hoki ki a Ngāti Tamaoho; tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou e mātakitaki mai nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.

[May I formally greet you Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is only proper to offer greetings to Ngāti Tamaoho; I stand here to welcome those of you who are watching, therefore greetings to you all.]

It’s always a pleasure to speak on Treaty settlement bills, and this one in particular. As my colleague Jan Logie pointed out, in terms of the history of Ngāti Tamaoho, everything that they suffered in the scale of Treaty settlements is very near the top end of breaches to the Treaty that they have endured. One of the things that I thought I might do today is just say thank you—thank you on behalf of my constituents, thank you on behalf of New Zealand. I think New Zealand should say thank you to Ngāti Tamaoho: thank you for accepting a framework which is imperfect; thank you for working diligently through the process of getting to this point of accepting a settlement that addresses the breaches to the Treaty.

We all know that it’s not compensation, and it’s really important for us to always remember the difference. The difference means that Ngāti Tamaoho has accepted a way forward, as they stated in their submission, so that they can move forward as a people. I think this House ought to acknowledge that, and I’m sure each one of us in this House—and I acknowledge all of the contributions so far that have made the same kinds of comments about Treaty settlement bills. I think that this, along with other settlement bills, shows how we can as a nation move forward, and I too want to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little and the Hon Christopher Finlayson for their work on this bill.

Where I come from, if there’s something wrong and we call a hui, then a lot of people turn up and a lot of people will be complaining. I think the fact that there are only two submissions indicates that the work done behind the scenes to address overlapping issues was a very considered, constructive one delivered by Ngāti Tamaoho, because if there were outstanding issues with overlapping claimants and others, we would have seen a number of submissions objecting to the settlement. In this case, as has been pointed out before in this debate, for the very first time there were no opposing submissions.

I think, again, we should give thanks in particular to Ngāti Tamaoho Trust Board, and I want to acknowledge the chairperson, Dennis Kirkwood, for all of the work that they have done on getting their settlement to this point. I think that in acknowledging Ngāti Tamaoho we should also acknowledge the length of time that it’s taken. It’s been a really long time, and I wonder why it has to be that way. I think we probably, in every settlement, should be as expeditious as we can. I’m not certain why this one has taken so long, but I suspect it was how I’ve already acknowledged—there were overlapping issues to deal with. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill for the second reading this afternoon. As this House progresses through another stage another Treaty settlement, we reflect on the principles of the Treaty that this House is seeking to redress, and in terms of what we able to do as a Parliament to be able to ensure that we make progress in regards to our Treaty settlements. This is about ensuring that we, as a House, recognise the wrong which has taken place over the history of our country, about strengthening the partnership between the Parliament, the Government, the Crown, and the iwi, and about ensuring that our iwi have the economic potential so that they can determine their own future. This bill does those things and is based upon those principles.

When we look at the wrong that was done to the Ngāti Tamaoho people, it is shameful on our history. It is good to see that while over a hundred years has gone past, we are now doing something about that, and it is good to see that this legislation is progressing.

I thought it was very fitting for the Minister of Justice, whose name this bill is in, to recognise that there were only two submissions and both submissions were in favour of this bill, and that, for the first time, there was no opposing submission. I thought that showed a level of partnership in the process. It showed that good faith had been entered into by both parties and that the issues were appropriately dealt with to get us to this stage. As we progress now to committee stage and then through to the third reading, I know that that will continue.

This bill does a number of different things. It vests a number of sites with iwi, jointly vests management of the Hunua Ranges with the iwi and Auckland Council, statutorily acknowledges a number of sites with Ngāti Tamaoho, changes a number of names, and grants cultural and financial redress and commercial redress of four sites. As I said earlier, that is about the principle of ensuring that the iwi is put in a position where they are able to leverage that opportunity to ensure that they can advance the economic potential for the people of Ngāti Tamaoho, of which there are 2,500, and ensure that their future is a bright one.

I commend this bill to the House. I commend Minister Little for progressing this, and Minister Finlayson as well. It is good to see it going through with the support from both sides of the House. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko Mokai ki runga, ko Tāmaki ki raro, ko Pare Hauraki ko Pare Waikato, Te Kaokao o Pātetere, ko Mangatoatoa ki waenganui, hoki ake mai ki Te Nehenehenui. Tēnei te mihi ki a Ngāti Tamaoho i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e tika ana ki te hoki aku mahara ki te koroua rongonui taku hoa tawhito, Toko Pompey, te kaumātua mō te iwi, te toa ki te mahi whakangahau, e tika ana ki te maumahara ia i tēnei wā. Nō reira, Madam Deputy Speaker, koutou katoa, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou.

[Greetings Madam Speaker. Indeed, greetings to everyone. Mōkau is above, Tāmaki is below, boundaries include Hauraki and Waikato, as far as Te Kaokao Roa o Pātetere, Mangatoatoa lies between, territory otherwise known as Te Nehenehenui. I acknowledge you, Ngāti Tamaoho. It is only proper that I remember that famous elder, my old friend Toko Pompey, an elder statesman of his people, and a champion entertainer; it is fitting to remember him at this time. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, indeed to all of you, greetings.]

At this time, I wanted just to pay tribute to one of our koroua who played a major part in this too. He wasn’t part of the negotiating team, but he was talking about his tribe when we started on Māori radio, back in the late 1980s. Toko Pompey, or Sammy D, as he was known in terms of his stage name, was one of the great kaumātua for this tribe, and regularly would berate us on radio and tell the Tamaoho story like nobody else could. He was an entertainer-plus, a stunning saxophone player, and a great singer modelled on Sammy Davis Jr. Yes, he was—he was an entertainer-plus. Plenty of fun, Sammy D, or Toko Pompey, and then he had the serious side where he was a kaikōrero for our Māori Queen—our great friend, well-known by the Hon Peeni Henare and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

These were the sorts of characters who might not have been at the final sign off in terms of these types of korero, but they played such an integral role in terms of our tribes, these korouas who would come on Māori radio or Māori Television and berate us about the history and the anguish of their tribe. As all the speakers have said on both sides, this is right up there in terms of atrocities, with regards to what’s happened to different tribes. This is right up there.

It’s a tribute to this House that we can come together on occasions like this, on kaupapa like this, to remember the atrocities. There are very few places in the world—I think we can all pat ourselves on the back—where we can actually acknowledge the treachery of the Crown back in those days. What they did to that tribe, who were very compliant with the Crown, is unforgivable—unforgivable. However, our people have moved on. This kaupapa was taken by the Hon Chris Finlayson and handled tremendously well, handled with the utmost of sensitivity.

What I did enjoy from the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was when he talked about how this type of history should be taught in the schools, so that all New Zealanders are aware of the history and treachery of the Crown, and that would make it so much easier for so many of our kids today and people today to understand what we are doing here in the House, because lots of them don’t know—lots of them don’t know—and the former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako over there, knows better than anyone else. He was chairing this through this process. So sometimes people are watching from the outside and they don’t know the business of this House. It would certainly help in terms, I think, of settlements, if there was some sort of narrative given in the schools, and this Tamaoho story is one heck of a story.

I’m mentioning the koroua today, very much in context of the bill—as I said, Toko Pompey, because Toko was an entertainer and he wrote a song about the ancestor Tamaoho, which was sung by the great Māori singer Richard Eriwata. It is the most beautiful song. It talks about the ancestor and the wairua and the history. So I mihi to that koroua today. I spoke at his tangi about 18 months ago, with many of Tainui, but I pay tribute to him in the House today for what he did, and I pay tribute also to Chris Finlayson. To our Minister, of course, Andrew Little, he’s doing a terrific job—I mihi to him, and to the former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, and, of course, our current chair, Rino Tirikatene, who is working to get this through.

The great thing about this, as we all know, is no one plays any politics. Everybody knows what an injustice it was and we get on with the business so that that tribe can get some justice, and they’re getting that. They’ve got the settlement.

Sadly, they’re not going to get Remuera returned to them or Waiheke Island. It would’ve been nice to have—or some of the lands around Pukekohe or around Karaka. Yes, it would’ve been nice to have actually had some of that returned in terms of the redress, but the reality is—they know what the reality is. They know what the reality is, and the reality is that those types of lands would never be returned. Again, if New Zealanders could understand that when they drive through Remuera, when they drive along the Pukekohe highway, when they see the different land, if New Zealanders were all aware of the history and the treachery that went on there, I think that race relations would be much better in this country—much better in this country. If they understood what “landless” means in terms of an iwi—it is very tough for an iwi that is landless.

But it’s not just about being landless; for us it’s a loss of mana for a lot of them. It’s a loss of wairua. There’s so many generations who are affected, who were affected, by the outrage that went down in this area. As I said, it would be just terrific if all of New Zealand were aware of the history that went down in this area.

We have another reading coming up and I intend to have another kōrero at that reading. But I just want to mihi to everyone who’s made a contribution today, and I congratulate people for their kōrero and I look forward to the third reading when we come to a conclusion. I’m sure it’ll be lovely on that day if some of the people from Tamaoho can join us to celebrate the sign off of a settlement that is well and truly deserved for the people of that area. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E mihi ana ki ngā uri o Ngāti Tamaoho

[I acknowledge the descendants of Ngāti Tamaoho.]

When I stand to speak on these Treaty settlement readings, on these Treaty settlement bills, I do so ever mindful of the immense privilege but also mindful of the burden that goes with that, now standing in the position as a member of Parliament, because in this role there’s an acknowledgment of the wrongdoings by the Crown to the people who have endured this for many, many generations.

I acknowledge all the previous speakers in the House today, who have spoken with heartfelt, sincere eloquence. Being one of the later speakers on this, I will pick up just some of the threads that have been referenced from my colleagues.

One of those is that when one stands to address the House and members of the public on matters of Treaty settlements, there’s no dispute whatsoever about the repugnancy of the history and the depth of the hurt and the wrongdoing and the injustice, and we come together as political parties, not politicising this in any way whatsoever, but to acknowledge, address, and redress those wrongdoings from the past. That is our responsibility as agents of the Crown and members of Parliament in moving matters forward.

Ngāti Tamaoho is not a tribal people that I was aware of, regrettably, until my service as a member on the Māori Affairs Committee. As a first-time servant on that committee with my colleague Jenny Marcroft, who spoke earlier, I share with her also that not having the privilege of being able to meet some of the people—and I look forward to that at the third reading in the final passage of this bill—is that the context that we garner from the history is based on what we have read. I’ve not had the privilege of hearing the people speak, and, undoubtedly, I look forward to the day when members from Ngāti Tamaoho are here for the third reading and passage of this bill.

As a student studying law up at Auckland University, for a number of years I drove from Mangonui through the lands of the Ngāti Tamaoho people without realising their history. I now realise that, and I now appreciate it. This bill is a significant milestone in that it’s acknowledging not only the people of Ngāti Tamaoho but the people who have served in getting this to the stage that it is at. My acknowledgments go to my colleague the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and now to you, Minister Andrew Little, to get this over the line, and also to my colleagues in the House here today.

I draw on the passages of the bill in relation to the history. I’ve referenced not knowing that history, and I will speak to that should I have the privilege of doing so at the third reading. Clause 8 outlines that and the mamae, the wrongfulness of what has happened to the people, particularly the fact that it was not only the land confiscations or the injustice of the land transactions but also being deemed as rebels and being branded as that, despite the fact that there was the acknowledgment of the people, in terms of their own sovereignty and the survival of that, to acknowledge the Crown and the colonisers. The detail of that in the bill is at clause 8. The other significant aspect in terms of redress settlement is by way of the cultural redress and also the financial redress, and that too is outlined in the bill.

My call this afternoon is brief. I look forward to being able to speak more substantively at the next opportunity. In conclusion, I commend this bill wholeheartedly, and we do that collectively as colleagues in this House. That is a privilege that I have shared, and that is something that I do welcome when I stand to address the House—that there is no dispute whatsoever, and we are acting as collective representatives and agents in support. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i te reo Māori mō te roanga ake o taku kōrero. Tupu mauriora ki te whei ao ki te ao mārama tihē wā mauriora. Heoi anō ka mea atu ki a koutou, e oho e Te Whare! Ko tēnei te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei Pire a Ngāti Tamaoho. Nā runga i tērā whakaaro ka tukuna atu ngā mihi me te inoi atu ki Te Kaihanga kia toro mai tana ringa manaaki, tana ringa atawhai ki runga i a Kīngi Tūheitia, Kīngi Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero Te Tuawhitu e noho mai nā ki runga i te ahurewa tapu o ōna mātua, o ōna tūpuna. Ka tukuna atu ngā mihi ki runga i a Waikato whānui arā ko Ngāti Tamaoho tētahi o ngā peka o te awa rangatira o Waikato. Nō reira e mihi atu ana au ki a rātou. E tautoko atu ana au i ngā mihi ki te hunga mate, rātou kua ngaro atu ki te kāpunipunitanga o ngā wairua ki tua o Rēao ki tua o Rēpō, ka tau ki runga i te pae o mahara. Haere e ngā mate, haere.

Ka tautoko tonu ahau i ngā mihi i tukuna atu ki te Minita, ki te Hōnore a Andrew Little i kawea nei tēnei pire ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te rā nei. Ka tautoko anō hoki i ngā mihi i tukuna atu ki te Minita o mua arā ko te Hon Christopher Finlayson mō āna mahi hei whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa, atu ki a koe e te Matua e Tutehounuku Korako i arahi nei i te nohoanga a te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori me ngā kaituku kōrero ki runga i taua pire, tēnei te mihi; ki runga anō hoki i te heamana hou o te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori arā ko Rino Tirikatene.

Kua kōrero mai, i te kaupapa, ko tokorua noa iho ngā tāngata, ngā rōpū i whakakanohi mai i wā rātou kōrero ki tēnei pire. Arā ko te Kaunihera Nui o Tāmaki Makaurau, arā ko Ngāti Tamaoho. Ahakoa kīhai rāua tahi i tae-ā-kanohi mai, i tukuna mai wā rātou tautoko, me wā rātou kōrero ki runga i te pire nei. Engari ka kī atu ahau ki a tātou te Whare, ahakoa torutoru noa iho ngā tāngata i whakakanohi mai wā rātou kupu me wā rātou take e pā ana ki te pire nei, te maha hoki o ngā kōrero kīhai mātou otirā tātou i kite. Te hōhonutanga o te mamae i pā ki a Ngāti Tamaoho ki roto i ngā tau, kīhai mātou i kite. Nō reira e tika ana me mihi atu ahau ki a rātou.

Kua kōrero mai ngā Mema katoa o tēnei Whare mō te āhuatanga o te whakamā ka pā ki runga i a Ngāti Tamaoho nā runga i te arero rua me te mahi pokokōhua a te Karauna ki a rātou. Ko te kī atu a te Karauna ki a rātou tuhia mai tētahi kawenata me tō tautoko i te Kāwanatanga. Ahakoa tērā, i tūkinohia e te Kāwanatanga i a Ngāti Tamaoho. Nō reira ka kite atu ahau i te pire—āe, ka whakapāha te Kāwanatanga arā te Karauna ki a Ngāti Tamaoho ka tika. Engari ko tāku e hiahia nei ko te whakamōhio atu ki te Whare i te rā nei i tētahi kupu Māori arā ko te “hauhau”. Anā ko te kupu “hauhau” arā ko te “rebellion”. Ka kōrero mai tēnei kupu nā runga i te āhuatanga o te whakaaro Māori. Āe, ka whakapāha te Karauna ki roto i te Pire mō tēnei āhuatanga, engari ko te tirohanga a te iwi Māori ki te hunga “hauhau”, me te hunga “kūpapa”, he ōrite. Ka pā te whakamā ki runga i a Ngāti Tamaoho mō te hia tau. Nō reira, he wero tēnā ki a Ngāi Māori kia tiro atu ki taua āhuatanga kia kaua e pā anō te whakamā ki a Ngāti Tamaoho me te tini o ngā hapū kua pā tēnei tū āhuatanga.

Atu i tēnā, ka kite atu ahau ki roto i te pire nei, i ētahi o ngā panonitanga, i ētahi o ngā mahi tīnihia ki roto i te pire. Ko tētahi e pā ana ki te wāhi ātaahua ko te wāhi rongonui arā ko Ngā Wairere o Hunua, arā ko te Hunua Falls. I kī mai te Kaunihera ka panonihia i tētahi o ngā āhuatanga o te ture e pā ana ki te Reserves Act 1977. Ka taea e ngā hapū e whā ki te kōkiri tahi i ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki Ngā Wairere o Hunua, me te mea nei kia tiaki i te wāhi ātaahua i te wāhi tūpuna a Ngā Wairere o Hunua. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā mahi ki roto i te pire nei.

Arā, ka kōrero e Te Whare i te āhuatanga mō te tini o ngā hapū me te tini o ngā iwi ka whaipānga ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau puta noa. Kaua ki ngā rohe anake a Ngāti Tamaoho engari mai i te raki o Tāmaki-makau-rau arā ko Mahurangi, heke iho mai ki te Moana Tīkapa anā ka tau ki runga i te kāinga e mōhiotia nei ko Pokeno i ēnei rangi. He kaupapa nui tēnā nā runga i te mōhio kei roto i te pire nei ka wahaina mai ko ngā iwi me ngā hapū ka whaipānga ki ngā whenua, me ngā kaupapa kua arahia ake nei ki roto i te kōrero a Ngāti Tamaoho ki roto i ngā tau. Arā ko tētahi ko Te Akitai Waiohua anā ko tētahi atu ko Ngāti Te Ata, ko Ngāi Tai, ko Ngāti Koheriki, arā ko Ngāti Whanaunga—he tini. Nō reira kua roa rawa ahau e mea atu ana kia tūpato e Ngāi Māori. Mehemea ka whakataiapangia te ture i a koe ka pēhea koe arā koutou ko tō uri ki roto i ngā tau me ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro? Nō reira he tūpatotanga kei roto i tērā tū āhuatanga.

Ko tētahi atu āhuatanga kei roto i te pire nei, ko te āhuatanga ki ngā kohuke, arā ko te minerals. Ko ngā kohuke. Tukuna atu tērā kupu ki roto i ā koutou papa kupu. Add that to your vocabulary. He pai te kite atu i te āhuatanga o ngā kohuke ki roto i ngā pire pēnei nā. Nā runga i te mōhio, tēnā pea he rawa kei roto kia kaua e rirona atu ki te Karauna anake. Engari mehemea kei a Ngāti Tamaoho te mana whakahaere, te mana kaitiaki, ki runga i wā rātou ake whenua, me whakarite nei ki roto i te ture tētahi wāhanga ka taea e Ngāti Tamaoho te whakahaere i wā rātou ake mahi e pā ana ki ngā mahi kohuke. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga ki roto i te pire.

Ko tētahi atu he mea pai te kite atu kia panonihia i ngā ingoa kua roa rawa ki runga i ngā āhuatanga me ngā kāinga Māori. Ko tētahi, ko Clarks Creek. Ko taua wāhi rā, āe e kīia nei te motu whānui i tēnei wā ko Clarks Creek engari he engari he ingoa Māori tōna. Nō reira ko te hiahia mō ngā wāhi whenua, me ngā wāhi tapu o te ao Māori āe, me panonihia te ingoa Pākehā ka whakamanahia te ingoa Māori ki runga i aua wāhi, nō reira he pai te kite atu kei roto i ngā whakaritenga o tēnei pire ētahi atu o ngā wāhi ki roto o Ngāti Tamaoho, o Tāmaki-makau-rau kia panonihia. Ko tētahi atu: kua mea nei te whare whānui i tētahi wāhi ki roto i taku rohe pōti a Remuera. Ko tōna ingoa tika, ko Remu Wera, kaua ko Remuera, engari ko Remu Wera—e rua ngā kupu. Tēnā pea me āta whakaarohia tātou katoa ki roto i te whakahaerenga o tēnei pire otirā ngā pire e pā ana ki a Tāmaki Makaurau kia whakatikatika i te ingoa o Remu Wera, arā ko tētahi o ngā wāhi rongonui o Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ko te āhua nei ka nui tēnei māku. Nā runga i te mōhio ā taihoa ake nei ka whakatūngia te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire, me te manako ka tae mai a Ngāti Tamaoho ki te whakakanohi i te Karauna me ā mātou whakapāha me ngā tū āhuatanga kua whakaritea nei e mātou ki roto i tēnei pire mai i tēnei wā atu ki ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro, e Te Māngai o Te Whare e Te Whare puta noa, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. I will stay in Māori for my entire speech. Behold the sneeze of life which propels us in to the world of light and enlightenment. I say to you all, wake up House! We are at the second reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho bill. With that in mind, let us give praise and call upon the Creator to extend the hand of blessings and kindness upon King Tūheitia, King Pōtatau Te Wherowhero the Seventh, who sits in that sacred place once occupied by his elders and his forebears. Let us further extend our greetings to Waikato at large, and more specifically to Ngāti Tamaoho, one of the tributaries of the great Waikato River. Therefore, I acknowledge them. I join in the paying of respects to the dead, those who have gathered at the meeting place of the spirits beyond this world of day and night to rest in the realm of fond memory. Farewell, farewell

I endorse the compliments that have been paid to the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, who has brought this bill before the House today. I also endorse the compliments which have been paid to the former Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson whose efforts have brought this matter this far, and to you sir, Tutehounuku Korako, who previously led the Māori Affairs Committee sittings and receipt of submissions on this bill; I also acknowledge Rino Tirikatene, the new chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee.

It has been mentioned that only two bodies have made submissions on this bill. They are the Auckland Council and Ngāti Tamaoho. They have not appeared in person but their support and records of their positions on this bill have been received. I say to us all in this House that although we have heard a few submissions outlining people’s thoughts and views on this bill, I suggest there is much that remains unseen. There is the deep, abiding hurt that Ngāti Tamaoho have suffered over the years, which we cannot claim to have witnessed. It is only right therefore that I should especially acknowledge them.

All of the Members of this House who have spoken refer to the shame that befell Ngāti Tamaoho because of the duplicity of a treacherous Crown towards them. It was the Crown who required them to sign an agreement declaring allegiance to the Government. Despite that, Ngāti Tamaoho were cruelly mistreated by the Government. And so, I look at the bill—yes, it is only proper that the Government, that is the Crown, should apologise to Ngāti Tamaoho. However, I wish to teach the House a Māori word today, and that word is “hauhau”. The word “hauhau” denotes rebellion. Let us look at this word through a Māori lens. It is all well and good for the Crown to include an apology as part of the settlement, but taking a Māori perspective, the word “hauhau” is synonymous with “kūpapa” (traitor). Ngāti Tamaoho have borne that shame for many years. It is therefore incumbent on Māori to take note of this, so that this shame never again attaches to Ngāti Tamaoho nor to the several other tribes to whom this kind of thing has happened.

Also, I see in this bill that other changes are afoot, changes that are facilitated by this bill. One concerns that beautiful place, that famous landmark known as Hunua Falls. The council has declared that changes will be made in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977. The four affected tribes can together advance matters relevant to Hunua Falls, including the care and protection of the beautiful and historically important Hunua Falls. I am therefore pleased to make special mention of this part of the bill.

I now turn my attention to the many subtribes, and indeed tribes within and around Auckland who have a stake in this matter not just those within Ngāti Tamaoho boundaries but also Mahurangi, heading north of Auckland, coming around to the Hauraki Gulf, and reaching the area that is now known as Pokeno. Clearly, there are far-reaching consequences. I am mindful that this bill has ramifications for the tribes and subtribes who are landowners and for whom submissions by Ngāti Tamaoho over the years give rise to issues of interest to them. One such example is Te Akitai Waiohua, others include Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Koheriki, Ngāti Whanaunga—there are several. It is for this reason that I have long said for Māori to beware. If you are fenced in by the law, what will you and your descendants do in future? Therefore, heed this note of caution.

Another matter for consideration in this bill concerns minerals. Kohuke. Add that to your vocabulary. It is good to see that mention of minerals makes it into bills like these. We know that if there are riches within the land, they shouldn’t be the exclusive prerogative of the Crown. If Ngāti Tamaoho is to have control and guardianship over their own land, the law ought to include provisions that Ngāti Tamaoho also retains control over any minerals therein. I am therefore pleased to highlight this part of the bill.

It is also pleasing that there will be name changes that have for too long ignored Māori settlement. One is Clarks Creek. While this locality is widely known as Clarks Creek, it does have a Māori name. There is an expressed wish for places and sites sacred to Māori to have the Pākehā names changed in favour of the original Māori ones. It is therefore encouraging to see provisions in this bill for changes to place names within the Ngāti Tamaoho and wider Auckland area. One other thing: a suburb in my electorate is well known as Remuera. Its correct name is Remu Wera, not Remuera, but Remu Wera—two words. It is perhaps timely in the passage of this or any bill that affects Tāmaki Makaurau, for us all to consider correcting the name of one of the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate’s most well-known localities to Remu Wera.

I believe that for now I have said enough. Knowing that this bill will reach its third reading in due course, and in the earnest wish that Ngāti Tamaoho will attend in person to receive the Crown’s apology and to accept the provisions that are made in this bill for current and future benefits, Madam Speaker and the House, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.]

Bill read a second time.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, that a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations and capital for the 2017/18 financial year in respect of Vote Audit and Vote Ombudsman, and the estimates of expenses and capital injection for the 2018/19 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and support the notice of motion that’s just been put forward. It was a privilege to be part of the Officers of Parliament Committee, who had the opportunity to sit and listen to the presentations made by all three respective parties. They do a good job in their interaction with New Zealand, and it’s a pleasure to commend this. I recommend it to the House. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to take a very quick call, because it hasn’t been often in many parliaments that we have seen increases to all these three entities through this process. It’s quite a unique process—different from the traditional Budget.

I want to single out in particular the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s increase. The two areas where we’re seeing the increase is for staff, which is important to make sure that office is well funded, but also what we’re seeing is an increase in research support for economics in Mātauranga Māori. Often there’s quite a distinction between the environment and the economy; they’re seen as different things. But a new approach to dealing with the environment is to consider the fact that our economy is, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. So we need to make sure we live within those natural boundaries, but also that within the economic space we provide for all New Zealanders so that we can have a thriving, richer society. So we’re very pleased to see these developments within the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s office. We support the appropriation and the motion entirely. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

Bills

Families Commission Act Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a straightforward piece of legislation. It takes the next steps to update and improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of social science research and advocacy for the interests of families and whānau, and recognises that investing in families is an integral part of how this Government chooses to operate. The bill consists of two parts. The first repeals the Families Commission Act 2003, thereby disestablishing the Families Commission. The second provides for residual management processes to effectively manage the consequences of the disestablishment.

I would like to start by thanking the Social Services and Community Committee for considering this bill over recent weeks. They have treated it as a priority and produced a timely and thorough examination of it. I am particularly pleased that the committee examined the bill in the context of other changes that have been or are being made, such as the creation of the Social Investment Agency and the general expectation that research and evaluation resources are available and subsequently used.

The committee’s report notes that a number of submissions were received on the bill but that these focused on the original policy decision and consequences of disestablishment, rather than on the actual legislation itself. Based on this analysis, the committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the bill requires no further changes. However, I would like to take this opportunity to look at the issues raised in the submissions and at how the Government proposes to address them.

The first issue is about the need to have an agency with the statutory role of advocating for families and whānau. I recognise that a case could have been made to have an agency with this role back in 2004, when the Families Commission was established. However, the social sector today is significantly different. We have a better understanding of the diversity of New Zealand families and of the drivers of families and whānau well-being. A lot of this can be attributed to the commission’s work on the scope and definition of what it means to be a family or a whānau unit. More importantly, this Government has a clear focus on improving the well-being of all New Zealanders. An example of this is the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, where many agencies are working together to address the very urgent issue of child poverty in this country. Another example is that Treasury has been developing the Living Standards Framework to incorporate well-being outcomes and support policy development across all activities of Government.

A number of agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are able to continue the important task of advocating for families and whānau. This Government has a collective and united focus on improving people’s well-being, success, and ability to reach their full potential. Going forward, I am positive that good mechanisms exist to ensure that attention is given to the needs and interests of families and whānau, wherever they may be. In particular, the Ministry of Social Development will produce and publish the Family and Whānau Status Report in June of this year, which will provide a means by which we can monitor the progress made.

The second issue raised by submitters concerned the ability to maintain the level of coordination and collaboration necessary for effective research and evaluation. I’m confident that these connections will endure once the commission is disestablished, and the Social Investment Agency, established as a stand alone departmental agency in July 2017, will contribute a significant dose of capability in this area.

The need for effective research and evaluation of programmes has become a common part of core processes, with agencies placing importance on using research and evaluation evidence when making important investment decisions. There are heightened expectations on agencies to work with each other on investing for social well-being, and the State Services Commission is working on assisting agencies to work better together into the future. I note that the Families Commission, in conjunction with the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association, has played a key role in establishing practice guidelines and tools that encourage more effective use of research. These tools and practice guidelines support decision-making processes across Government, especially those involving Budget initiatives. Ministers continue to value this type of information, and I expect that these tools and guidelines will continue to apply, even once the commission is disestablished.

The third issue raised by submitters concerned the ongoing availability of the considerable amount of useful, valuable, and meaningful information produced and collated by the Families Commission during its existence. The Ministry of Social Development is working closely with the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) over key aspects of the disestablishment process. As you would expect, they are taking great care to preserve this storehouse of knowledge and ensure stakeholders are kept up to date. This includes maintaining the SuPERU website and the tools to support NGOs and continuing the Growing Up in New Zealand research fund. The Social Investment Agency is now responsible for maintaining access to the Hub, a one-stop shop for New Zealand Government social science research, which currently features more than 6,400 research publications. I’ve also been advised that the Ministry of Social Development will ensure all archive requirements are met, and you will be pleased to know that SuPERU is approaching the Parliamentary Library to ensure that members of this House have continued access to these resources.

The arrangements already made and planned for the transfer of the commission’s functions are comprehensive. In November last year and April this year, some functions were transferred to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, and, of course, the Social Investment Agency. The shared goal between all parties is to achieve an orderly and seamless transition for stakeholders and the remaining Families Commission staff.

I would like to once again thank Mr Len Cook, the outgoing SuPERU board chair, and other members of the SuPERU board and remaining staff for their professional, diligent, and conscientious approach to this process. I am confident that the changes provided for in this bill, along with the other changes being implemented by the Government, are the right next steps to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of social science research and advocacy for the interests of families and whānau of Aotearoa New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am thrilled to open this debate on behalf of the National caucus in supporting the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, and it’s particularly encouraging because, of course, this was work initiated by the National Government as part of its work, really, to not only invest in families but support families and enable greater use of the research and data and evidence to support them in the future.

So this particular piece of legislation, as the Minister said, is quite straightforward and it wraps up the changes to disestablish the Families Commission, which was restructured into the social policy evaluation and research unit, or SuPERU, in 2014. It is somewhat curious, though, that the Minister who spoke on the bill talked about the fact that the Social Services and Community Committee progressed it with urgency, for which he was grateful. Of course, there was no choice in the matter; the Government decided this should be rammed through with a shortened report back, which was rather concerning and has become a bit of a common practice by the Government, but anyway.

So this piece of legislation shows that and moves some of the important work that was being done by the Families Commission and SuPERU. Some of the work has gone to the Ministry of Justice, some to the Ministry of Social Development, and some to the Social Investment Agency. And I must say, it was with great delight that this side of the House saw that the Ardern-Peters Government had decided to continue with the vital work of the Social Investment Agency. It was only established in the middle of last year. But it really signals quite a significant way forward in terms of how we deal with some of the most complex challenges that New Zealand faces and that, actually, Kiwi families are facing. It’s about greater use of data and evidence and a focus on measuring outcomes, meaning that we can create a system that provides greater opportunities to intervene earlier, and I’m sure this bill will be supported unanimously across the House because who wouldn’t want to do that? Who wouldn’t want to intervene earlier and change the lives of some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders?

So it is really exciting, and as the previous Minister, the Hon Amy Adams, said when she announced the formation of the Social Investment Agency, it’s not just about Government departments and the way they interact with people and how they support them but it’s also enabling the non-Government organisations, and I think that’s a really important piece that I want to throw into this debate: the Social Investment Agency supports New Zealand; it doesn’t just support Government agencies. And one thing that taxpayers do expect and demand is that there are always greater levels of support and greater ways to enable the public sector to better serve those that it should serve, and, in fact, the most vulnerable ones.

I thought I would just also bring some comments from one of the submitters, and it’s actually the Public Service Association, who in their submission talk about the bridge between Government agencies, NGOs, and communities—and so seeing a really important ongoing role for Social Investment Agency in that area. So I thought I would just bring their voice to this debate, because they see and value the importance of the Social Investment Agency.

The Minister who gave the second reading speech also talked about the child poverty bill, and in our time in office there was a significant focus on lifting children out of hardship, out of poverty, and we had plans to go further. The incoming Government has a slightly different way to approach it; that’s fine. At the end of the day, New Zealanders want to know that as a Parliament we are focusing on this important issue, and the Prime Minister has clearly stated that she wants the child poverty legislation to be supported across the Parliament. So it’s really good to be able to work with the Prime Minister on that bill. I know that there will be strong support for the Supplementary Order Paper that includes the social investment principles, and the fact that the Social Investment Agency, through this legislation, is being given more responsibility, I think just reinforces why that’s so important. It is about targeting support for those that need it most. This is an important and sensible measure. Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m pleased to support it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. Can I acknowledge Louise Upston, the speaker who just resumed her seat. Yes, that speaker referred to the fact that this was a piece of work that was left behind, undone, by the previous administration. She’s quite right. This is another piece that the current Government is just having to tie up—another loose end left behind after nine years that we’re just having to make sure we pass through and tie up tidily.

I’m interested that that previous speaker was somewhat disappointed and surprised and expressed concern about a shortened report back from the select committee on this bill, considering it was the previous Government that had actually stripped everything away and had just left a shell of what was the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) and that this piece of legislation was inevitable due to the actions taken by the previous administration. So it doesn’t seem to sort of resonate, the fact that there was some concern that the Opposition would like to take a very long time in select committee for something that they had organised so that there was no turning back anyway.

I also note the contribution from the previous speaker—and the Minister who introduced the bill back at its second reading—around the Social Investment Agency. I acknowledge the member’s—how would you put it?—compliment, I suppose, to the current administration: that they have retained the Social Investment Agency. And yes, that is quite right. I would argue—and I have argued, and I am arguing—that the previous administration created such a sense of distrust among our families and so on around the term “social investment” that there is something to be said for changing the name of the agency. That is not official Government policy; that is me speaking—just because I know that some people freak out when Ministers articulate a particular perspective—but it would have to be said that the previous administration used the Social Investment Agency to create an equation of risk to the State by those of our New Zealand citizens that needed support.

It’s the type of support that the Families Commission Act and the research that’s been done—that’s the type of evidence that we have been given over the last so many years, since it was originally passed, back in 2003—that has enabled Governments to actually try and make sure that they focus on the well-being of their families and children within them. But the previous administration chose to use that evidence and that data and the research provided to use a deficit thinking model—to try and actually use this information and research provided to find out what sort of risk would that person, that New Zealander, be to the State and say, therefore, “We will pounce on them, stigmatise them, and then try and make them do things to better themselves.” I think that would describe how it was done.

So what this Government is going to do through the Social Investment Agency and through other pieces of legislation like the child poverty piece of legislation—and the Prime Minister and I are currently working on the child well-being strategy—is to use that information in a positive way to establish what well-being looks like. It is not what risk looks like to the country, but what well-being looks like. Then, through the child well-being strategy—knowing that children don’t live alone; children live in families—if we improve the environment and make sure that there is a standard of well-being that we will all strive for for our children, then, naturally, that will lift the families.

So that’s the way that the research and the evidence that has previously been provided by the organisation SuPERU and the organisations that some of those pieces have been shifted to, like the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development—that’s how they will work together with other Government departments to actually support the legacy of what was the Families Commission Act 2003, which, as I mentioned previously, was introduced by Peter Dunne. I do want to take every opportunity to acknowledge Peter Dunne. Mr Dunne spent many years in this House. He was often a strong contributor, and this was one of the pieces of legislation that, in 2003, he managed to achieved through the support agreement with the Labour Government. It was quite controversial at the time, so he did actually have to take quite a lot of flak around the creation of this particular ministry or department.

So, from that perspective, I think it is, in one way, a shame but, in another way, it’s a testament to how we have moved forward, by shifting these responsibilities—the research responsibilities and other responsibilities—that were previously embedded inside this organisation further out through Government departments. As the Minister said in the contribution to deliver the second reading, as long as the collaboration and coordination is still there—and it is our view that under the child well-being strategy, it will be even stronger, because there will be a requirement for that collaboration and coordination of all Government departments to support children and, therefore, their families going forward. We believe that this was a good thing at the time, but it is a moment that has gone, and, now, we can actually spread out that responsibility.

So, with that said, I will just close by saying that New Zealand First supports the legislation. Kia ora.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you. I look forward to standing and speaking on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill in its second reading. It’s a pity that Minister Tracey Martin’s remarks were somewhat condescending rather than contributing to, I suppose, the intent of this bill.

If we know its history, the history goes back to 2003, as has been spoken about. It was a political commitment of two parties coming together, United Future and the Labour Party, to ensure that there was more focus and direction on supporting families. It was quite clear, and when one looks back at the Hansards of the speeches that were given, it often reflected the fact that when we looked right across the whole of not only Government but society, there was always one common denominator, and that was the family. Whether it be with health, education, employment, or law and order, there was one issue there. And, at that time, there was a lack of evidence, of data, and therefore a lack of giving direction and focus to policy, legislation, and also to practice that would support the better lives of families. So one would have to say, I imagine, that most of us, if we were in the House, would have been very supportive of the direction of setting up the Families Commission.

Over that period of time, and in 2003 when the Act was put in place and in 2004 when the Families Commission then was formed, it was formed in an advocacy role. Part of that role was for them to establish research. So I do have to commend—over the history of that period of time where it developed its history—this research component to it. As that progressed—and it changed, obviously, as administrations changed from a Labour Government to a National-led Government—it took on some of those roles, but it began to ask the question that with the data that it was receiving, “How can we better use the analytics around actually forming better policy and better practice in regards to that development?”, hence the development of the social investment approach.

The social investment—again, it was asking very simple questions to all Government departments and of the Government itself. In other words, it held a mirror to itself and asked the question that if we could look at every dollar that we invested in Government and also in its outreach arms of its services in its ministries, could we actually, hand on heart, say that we were truly making a difference to families? Part of that approach was saying that we needed to first hold ourselves to account. So the whole social investment approach was wanting to make sure, with the data we had, that we were investing early and we were investing in the areas that we felt that were critically important, as well as holding ourselves to account.

As that transitioned on, so did the aspect of the information that was gathered in that period of time from 2010 to 2014 and 2015, hence the development of the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU), which, in particular, was to focus the research around families as well. So then, in that development, I want to acknowledge some of the work over that period of time that’s taken place. And if we think about the Families and Whānau Status Report, that’s critically important because what that does is, again, it gives data in the development of understanding the well-being, and—as the previous speaker, the Minister Tracy Martin, was talking about—now they’re developing some of that. I have to say that’s come off some of the work and the research that’s come out of the Families Commission and then formed into SuPERU as well.

We also, too, have the Family Violence Clearinghouse contract. I know that Greg O’Connor will know about this because it impacted where the police were as well. Again, I want to acknowledge the work that came out of SuPERU, which informed that. That still continues on. We’re also pleased that, as part of the transition and the repeal of this Act and the disestablishment of the Families Commission, those pieces of work will still be held. The Family Violence Clearinghouse will now still be the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. So that’s informing, again, the direction not only of practice but of policy as well. We think that’s important.

The roles and the residual responsibilities around the Families and Whānau Status Report will now go to the Minister for Social Development. We’re pleased to see that because part of our discussion in the Social Services and Community Committee was to ensure that the appropriations of funding that would then be established would also continue on through the Minister for Social Development. The Minister, in her remarks, talked about the fact of tying up loose ends. I have to say that’s incorrect, because we progressed in a way to ensure that we were still taking the intent of the Families Commission, of the Act, to ensure that we had both adequate evidence and data, but we were utilising that data in the best way to ensure that we were investing in the appropriate services that were supporting families. If one looks at the Social Investment Agency (SIA) that was set up by the National-led Government, it clearly talks about the fact in its statement: “Investing in what works for better lives”. And that’s the whole intent of it.

So, when we see the repeal of this Act, we have to say the fact that while it’s being repealed by the current Government of the day and it’s disestablishing the different components, it’s doing so because it realises the framework that was set up around social investment is a framework that will work. So when this Government is looking at the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, when it’s looking at the child well-being strategy, all of those elements will work if it applies the key principles of practice under social investment. So we’re very pleased by that. We were pleased by the fact that they’re adopting that, and it is the direction of work. It was a Cabinet paper in July 2017 which actually was progressing this, and, again, that’s something that we think is really important.

In closing my remarks, there’s a statement that says that everyone has their day in the sun. I think the fact is we can confidently say that we are taking on the work and the intent of the Families Commission that was set up in 2003, the work that it has progressed over the last 12 to 14 years, and that now, as it then sort of embeds itself and establishes itself in the different components of the mechanics of the Government and its different roles and responsibilities, we feel that that work is good work. We think that is work that will improve and better lives. We’re proud to support it because, I have to say, when one thinks about what are the good things that we have done over this period of time of nine years as a National-led Government, social investment has been a critical part of that.

So we support this bill it its direction. We think it’s an important part of what needs to continue on, and if we are serious, as the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction says, to lift the politics out of poverty in those discussions, then we think it’s important that social investment is a critical part. The last thing that I would say that is important is that Better Public Services targets are critically important, because it’s not about holding people to account in regards to the people of our community; it’s holding Government departments to account. If we don’t have that along with social investment, we’ll find that part of those mechanics will not achieve the results that we all desire, which is, again, to ensure that our families, our communities, have better lives. I commend this bill to the House.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill at its second reading. I thought what I would do in the course of my call today is obviously to outline a little bit the purpose of this bill—what it intends to do—and also talk a little bit about the submissions that the Social Services and Community Committee considered as well.

It was an honour to be part of the select committee, to be the deputy chair of the select committee that considered this bill. We worked very well together as a team to consider what the submitters said, which, as has been mentioned previously, was actually more about the policy intent of this as was started by the previous Government, rather than this piece of legislation per se. I also then want to go a little bit into the work of the Families Commission. It’s always, I think, a little bit bitter-sweet when something has been disestablished, and it’s quite good to look at some of the work that this commission has undertaken over the years and also to look at what happens to these pieces of work. I do also want to thank and acknowledge those who have been part of the Families Commission over the years, in my closing.

But to go back to the purpose of the bill, it’s actually quite straightforward, this one. It consists of two parts. The first is to repeal the Families Commission Act 2003 that established the Families Commission back in 2004. The second part of this bill is to look at how the process will be managed—so, the process of disestablishing the commission and ensuring that specific functions of the commission continue to exist, although it will do so in different parts or different arms of the Government.

This is a piece of legislation that has been inherited by the current Government. It’s been mentioned before that the process actually started some time back, and in fact a number of staff members of the Families Commission have actually moved on. The conversation has started about moving pieces of work out of the commission and into different arms or different public services as well.

So there were six submissions that were received by the select committee, and they did centre around primarily three themes. One was around the continuation of the advocacy role of the Families Commission, and it was noted by submitters that this was quite a strong role that the Families Commission played over the years. Some submitters were concerned that this wouldn’t be transferred anywhere, and that the advocacy function would be lost. However, there were other submitters who felt that actually the landscape has changed quite dramatically since 2004. The Families Commission undertook a good piece of work to ensure that the way that we look at the make up of families and whānau has changed considerably, and that society has moved on with that as well.

A little further on, I want to actually read a quote from one of the submitters that lays out that particular piece of work quite nicely. However, some of the other submitters felt that given this Government’s increased focus on child and family well-being, there was actually a place for this advocacy function. So the submissions were quite mixed when it came to this particular point. But, overall, the overarching sense was that we’ve moved on somewhat—somewhat considerably, actually—and that perhaps there wasn’t that much of a need for one particular entity to take on the role of advocacy. It could be farmed out across a number of agencies, both in Government and in the NGO sector as well.

There was also some concern that there may be a loss of independent policy advice that this commission had provided to Government, and whether the Social Investment Agency would, in fact, be an adequate replacement. Some submitters thought that it would be, and others didn’t. There was a fair bit of concern also outlined that there needs to be a continued strengthening of connections of coordination and collaboration, both within the Public Service but also between the Public Service and the NGO sector as well.

Just very briefly, going back to the advocacy role, the Children’s Commissioner’s submission was interesting; the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has come out basically and said that they could take on the advocacy function of families that have children. So that’s a subset of the work that was being done, but it would need a little bit more support for that to happen.

The ongoing availability of information—so, submitters highlighted the fact that the research that’s been undertaken over the years by the Families Commission has been incredibly useful, very valuable, and meaningful. Actually, over the years when I was a social policy researcher myself and a social worker in the NGO sector, I’m someone who has found their research reports incredibly useful. So I really identified with that. The Ministry of Social Development did reassure the select committee, however, that that would continue, that the availability of the information would continue, and that there’s been a fair bit of work that the ministry has undertaken to ensure the maintenance of that information and the continuation of that as well.

So there were a few pieces of work specifically that I wanted to highlight, and one of them is the Families and Whānau Status Report, which is an annual report that measures how New Zealand families and whānau are faring across a fairly wide range of indicators. It’s a broad piece of work that the commission has undertaken in the past, and this will continue as well.

I was also heartened to learn that the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study will continue and will be transferred as well. It provides evidence about basically what shapes children’s early development, so that every child in New Zealand can have the best start in life. This study started in 2008. It’s broadly reflective, I was pleased to find, of New Zealand’s changing demographic when it comes to ethnicity as well. So that piece of work will be transferred to the Ministry of Social Development.

The final—not so much a piece of work—function of the Families Commission that I’ve had a lot to do with is the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, which is, again, New Zealand’s clearinghouse for information regarding family violence, and research reports as well. I was very pleased to note that this function will be transferred to the Ministry of Justice, so the sector can rest assured that the information that’s held by the clearinghouse and the function that’s played by the clearinghouse will continue.

So I just wanted to quickly read out a small paragraph that was part of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation’s submission. This is really an acknowledgment of the work that the Families Commission has done to change the way that we view the make up of a family—or what a family is, really. So, anyway, they said, and I quote, “We warmly acknowledge that the Commission championed recognition of the difference between pākehā and Māori concepts of family and whānau, and an overarching inclusion of diversity. This is evidenced in their research reports including Whānau yesterday today and tomorrow … and Mātiro whakamua: looking over the horizon … Both reports draw on Māori knowledge, cultural practices and methods to research and analyse the stories and drivers of whānau success, and explore the role of Māori women as advocates of whānau development and the important role of te Reo. The commission has contributed to the pātaka of knowledge and enhanced our understanding, acceptance, and celebration of the diversity in development of family and whānau in Aotearoa.”

I think that’s well worth acknowledging, as many submitters did—the fact that the way we view, or how we consider, as a society, what a family looks like has changed over the years since 2004, and that the Families Commission has played an incredibly strong role in contributing to that change. I believe that it’s fitting, at the second reading, to acknowledge the work that has gone, and also to acknowledge the chief executives (CEs)—the successive CEs—and the staff who have worked tirelessly with the Families Commission, which has been known as the social policy evaluation and research unit, or SuPERU, as well, and to thank them for their dedication to their roles. It’s indeed a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I’m pleased to stand and support the second reading of the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. This is another outstanding piece of work, that was started by the former National-led Government, and it wraps up a number of changes to the disestablishment of the Families Commission, as we’ve heard, that was restructured in 2014 to the social policy evaluation and research unit.

We’ve heard a number of contributions today about what the meaning of this piece of legislation will be, and I’m really pleased that all of the work that’s been done to date will continue through its reconfiguration of agencies and resources designed to support the Social Investment Agency and social investment. Social investment, as one of my colleagues said today in her contribution, is about changing lives—changing the lives of everybody.

The previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, touched on the areas around Māori whānau concepts within one of the research areas of what this particular bill will end up doing. I’m really pleased that that is happening, because Māori whānau concepts—being Māori, coming from a whānau—are so different to the concepts, as an example, from whence my husband came, who is French and Irish. We have so many things to contribute under the repeal of this bill, as Māori whānau, that many people can learn around whanaungatanga and what that means. But in stating that, you know, just like every other whānau or family, we have our ups and downs. But I’m amazed and very happy that Māori whānau concepts are one of the key areas.

I do want to thank the current Government for taking on and carrying on with this piece of work. I think that it’s great when we can all view this through one lens, and it is about, as I said before, changing the lives of all families. It’s good that we all acknowledge that, and can come together every now and then to agree on such important pieces of legislation like this.

Some of the commission’s functions have already been transferred through non-legislative measures, and that’s good. This is the final part of the changes, and so when we start to look at it, we can see that these changes will actually aim towards ensuring that Government agencies are accountable for the well-being and the changes—the good changes—in the lives of whānau.

There is not really a lot more that I can add in this second reading, just that I’m really pleased that we’ve moved this far down in this piece of legislation, and I do look forward to its Royal assent not too far down the line. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call on the second reading of the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. The purpose, as has been stated by previous speakers, is to repeal the Families Commission Act 2003 and disestablish the Families Commission and tie up all the loose ends associated with doing that. It’s a pretty tight bill; the purpose is pretty obvious and pretty clear.

It has been to select committee and there were three core issues that were raised in that process—one of people having a concern that they wanted to see the retention of a statutory agency that advocated for families. The view of the committee and of this House, indeed, was that, actually, we have other mechanisms to be able to achieve the goal of ensuring that our families and their needs are integrated into policy, and the most obvious that we have coming forward is the child well-being strategy, as well as the cross-Government work in terms of bringing together good research for the well-being of our communities.

The second concern that was raised was the need to maintain coordination and collaboration for effective evaluation and research. The Social Investment Agency has progressively been taking on that role as there has also been more thinking across Government about the need for joining up our response for wicked problems, in particular, that can’t be dealt with effectively in the silos of Government. So I would like to assure those submitters that that concept of joining up our thinking and ensuring and supporting collaboration is very much a part of this new Government’s agenda. The previous idea of social investment was seen to do that through a very narrow lens of data.

We have a broader vision for doing that. And it has been interesting to me to hear some of the dancing on pins around the idea of social investment and broadening the concept of whānau and the understanding of that, because, from everything we saw, that did not go together particularly well in the previous concept of social investment that seemed to be quite deeply individualised and re-stigmatising. So it’s great to see us moving forward really holding the principles of coordination, collaboration, and community as well as family.

Other people were concerned about the need to ensure ongoing availability of the information, because there has been some great research done. I’m happy to give assurances, as others have, to this House that that information will be readily available and that the Hub, which is New Zealand’s one-stop shop for social science research, will be moving from the social policy evaluation; and the research unit to the Social Investment Agency; and that Growing Up in New Zealand will be supported through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD); and that the annual Families and Whānau Status Report and the supporting research around that will be brought in to the Ministry of Social Development, as well; and, very dear to my heart, the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, who do brilliant research very much in our communities all around the country with great relationships, will be supported by the Ministry of Justice. We look forward to seeing their work into the future.

The Green Party—I do think in this speech I should acknowledge that we didn’t support the establishment of the Families Commission in the first place.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I recall. I remember it well.

JAN LOGIE: Yeah—ha! Then, Sue Bradford was our spokesperson at the time, and she was quite clear, in the House, that the Green Party saw the establishment of the commission as a duplication of work that was already happening within existing agencies—MSD in particular—and that it was a waste of $28 million over four years that was really solving a problem that did not exist and was more about politicking than it was about the well-being of our families. And, in noting that, there had been no public outcry for the establishment of a research agency to support families, yet there had been quite a lot of public outcry in relation to poverty in our communities, which it would have been nice, at the time, to see that money going into. I’ve had similar concerns over that time.

None of those comments are to say that I didn’t respect and value the research that came out of the Families Commission—because I really did. They did some fantastic work. I don’t think the case was ever made that that work couldn’t have been done within other agencies. So now it is great to see the House in agreement on returning that work across our agencies and with the coordination role through different mechanisms. It’s very clear to me that our Government’s focus is on actually delivering the outcomes: on action rather than more talk. On that note, I will sit down.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very happy to stand and take a call on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. I haven’t been on the Social Services and Community Committee, so I haven’t had much to do with this bill, but I’m very happy to stand today and take a call in support of it, fundamentally because I’m a huge believer in, and supporter of, the social investment model. The good thing that I see in terms of this bill is, of course, we’re supporting it, but it seems to have largely had the confidence of the public as well. There were only eight submissions that were actually received. It looks like the committee went through those and discussed those in depth, and they were able to address the concerns that were raised by the submitters through that committee process.

I just wanted to refer to some comments that were made by the Hon Amy Adams, who, of course, was driving this work in the previous Government. “The new agency will replace the Social Investment Unit currently operating as part of MSD and will provide robust all-of-Government social investment advice about which people we should be investing further in, and in what ways.”

I just want to hark back to an example. It was a light-bulb moment for me personally, and that was over 20 years ago when I was a police dog handler in Gisborne. This is something that is etched into and burnt into my mind—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You wouldn’t have been old enough 20 years ago.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, thank you, Ruth. I appreciate it. She’s saying I don’t look old enough. So I’ll take that one. Thank you.

But anyway, for all the different things—and Greg would definitely identify with me here—with the amount of people you have contact with, and the number of incidents that you might attend that you forget over the years, this one has stuck with me. The reason why it has is because for me personally it was a genuine light-bulb moment. It was a young guy that was about 17 years old and he had started breaking into cars, he’d started his criminal career, and, one night, he’d broken into a car and he’d run off. I was called as a dog handler. We tracked him, we caught him, and we took him back to the station, and we started to process him. As part of that process in the watch-house there’s a charge sheet that they have to fill out, and in that charge sheet there’s a block there that’s got “Occupation”.

I clearly remember him. He hadn’t filled out the occupation block, and I said to him, “You need to put something in there; have you left school?” “Yes, I have.” I said, “What are you doing? What’s your occupation?” And he wrote in there “Unemployed”. I said, “Unemployed is not an occupation.” He said, “Yes, it is; that’s what my dad does.” In that moment the light bulb came on for me, and I realised that he’d been born into an environment where his example in life, his aspiration, was to go on to the unemployment benefit, to go on to a Government benefit, because his father, who he looked up to—that’s what his example was. The sad thing about it is that his first contact in terms of actually getting Government support or State help was coming into the criminal justice system. That was his first contact, and already he was in trouble. So already we had a big job ahead of us—well, the Government had a big job ahead of them—in terms of the investment that was needed to try and turn his life around as a 17-year-old.

Whereas under the social investment model, wouldn’t it be better to go back in time and to actually invest in him and invest in his situation—which is very complex, normally—look what support his father needed or his mother needed in terms of trying to provide a different environment so that he was on a different pathway. I didn’t really understand, at that point in my career, what was needed or the complexity around policies or Government decisions to make that happen, until I understood what the social investment model was, and that’s exactly what it is.

The other thing that I just want to allude to very quickly is the fact that there’s a heavy focus on the use of data, and I’m a huge believer in that also—that good policy decisions need to be helped along with good science and good data. So I’m very happy to stand and take a call in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin by commending the member Mark Mitchell, who’s just resumed his seat, not only for his contribution on this bill but for his temperate contribution to the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill last night. The tone of the debate could’ve done with a lot more of his style of contribution, rather than his colleagues’.

I’m pleased to be speaking to the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. It is a cross-party agreement, which is pretty unusual, but I’ve always said that it’s a good way to leave on a Thursday afternoon—that we can go out of this House having had a debate on which we’ve all agreed. The bill’s pretty small. It only has two parts. The first bit is to repeal the Families Commission Act and the second part is to provide for the residual management—the transition process, I guess. Quite a lot of that work has already begun. A lot of the work that the Families Commission, now called the social policy evaluation and research unit, has been doing over the last little while is now being transferred to the Ministry of Social Development.

I want to commend the contribution of Jan Logie, who always manages to speak appropriately in second reading debates. What the process is meant to be is that the whole House hears what happens at select committee and really learns a little more about what the select committee did and why it came to any conclusion. In this case, the select committee decided unanimously that no changes were needed to the bill. That’s pretty unusual. They only had a few submissions—eight, I think—to the bill. I wasn’t sitting on the select committee but I’ve read the report. So that’s quite a small number of submissions. It would indicate to me that the majority of the public have come to the conclusion that the time is right for the Families Commission to be abolished, and I certainly agree with that.

But some of the concerns that submitters have raised, I think, are worth recording in the history of the House during this debate, because I would like us to continue to reflect on those and ensure that as time progresses, their concerns, which were well heard and considered but not agreed with by the committee—we just make sure that the committees views line-up with what the public was thinking during that submission process.

The first one—and I guess for me it’s the most important one—is that submitters were concerned that with the abolition of the Families Commission, the role of advocacy, of raising the concerns of children and their families, would be lost. The committee came to the conclusion that there were enough organisations around to meet that advocacy need, that we have enough groups in our communities speaking on behalf of children and their families. I want us, as a Parliament, to ensure that that continues to be the case. That would be threatened—I’ll give one example that Alfred Ngaro will be well familiar with—if organisations felt that through their advocacy, raising concerns, they might lose their funding, as an example. We wouldn’t ever want that threat to come to fruition. We wouldn’t want organisations being silenced because of a threat from a former Minister, let alone a current Minister. So let’s ensure that that advocacy role is maintained.

The second issue that submitters raised was the importance of robust evaluation and research. Every Government policy decision should be based on evidence. It should be independent, it should be robust, and it should persuade, actually, all the members across the House. That’s not always the case, but frequently it is. If we all agree on the outcomes and the research is there, let’s use that research as the basis for our decision-making. A number of submitters commented about the need for collaboration between Government departments and agencies. I know that the State Services Commission is leading a big bit of work in that space. They have not been successful yet, and I certainly hope they make better progress.

The final point the submitters raised was the access to the ongoing availability of information. That is really important. We know that information is power, and all members of our society deserve to have access to the best information possible.

In the 45 seconds that I’ve got, can I acknowledge and thank everybody who has been involved with the Families Commission through its various iterations and its various Ministers. I had the privilege to be one of those Ministers in the past.

One final point, though: across the road this evening at the Backbencher is a fine debating team of politicians, who I predict will beat the fine debating team of journalists. Mark Mitchell and I were originally approached to be on that debating team. Despite the fact that neither of us are available, it’s going ahead, and I want to encourage people to go over there. The fund-raising’s for a very good cause, and I hope that everyone has an enjoyable night. Thank you.

SPEAKER: I call Nicola Willis—welcome to the Parliament.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise in support of the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. What an appropriate bill it is for me to speak to this first time after my maiden statement, because we in this House cannot delegate responsibility for families to a special Government agency, because it is our responsibility. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians, as representatives of New Zealanders, to ensure we put families at the heart of policy.

When we look at what this bill is repealing, the original legislation should be a warning to us of what can happen if we are seen to get out of step with everyday families, everyday parents, and people working hard to get ahead in this country, if they feel like politicians aren’t listening to them. This was a very popular idea, back when it was promoted by the Hon Peter Dunne, because people felt they weren’t being listened to. And if we take a step into today and we all agree that it is now time to move on from it, what is it that we now need to do instead of having a Families Commission? What we need to do, members of this House, is we need to make sure that we don’t allow our various Government agencies to continue to act in silos. We need to break down those silos. We need to see that the Ministry of Education works with the Ministry of Social Development, works with the Ministry of Justice, and, in doing that, that they make sense of the limited funding and resources we will always necessarily have, and focus them where they can make the biggest difference.

What is the single biggest lever we have had in recent years for achieving that—the biggest imagination, the biggest idea? Social investment. Social investment is the idea that says we can break down those silos, we can leverage data and evidence, and we can focus resources where they’ll make the biggest difference. So it should be a great disappointment to this House that the incoming Government has said, “Oh no. We don’t like the sound of that approach. It sounds far too much like we’ll be targeting taxpayer money where it might really make a difference!”

So it is very important that in repealing this Act we keep a focus on ensuring that Government agencies do continue to work together. I am a Wellingtonian and I can tell you that public servants do great work, but they are incentivised to work within votes, within departments, and not always to work together. What the responsibility of the Government to do is to make sure that they do in fact put families at the heart of social policy.

I’m very pleased to stand and speak in support of this bill. I say again what I said in my maiden speech yesterday, which is that parents are the heroes of New Zealand’s homes. We need to respect their efforts in this House. We need to adapt to the changing face of the modern family, and make sure our public institutions and services deliver for whānau. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasant surprise on a Thursday afternoon to be participating in the debate on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. It is a pleasure to join with members around the House in the debate on a bill of which we are of one mind.

This bill aims to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of social science research and advocacy for families by repealing the Families Commission Act of 2003 and disestablishing what we once knew as the Families Commission—something which I think we all kind of understood what it did—which is currently known as the social policy evaluation and research unit, or SuPERU. I think most New Zealanders would have absolutely no idea what that meant except that it might be a four-by-four.

The commission is an autonomous Crown entity within the meanings of the Crown Entities Act 2004. In fact, some of the commission’s functions have already been transferred to a variety of other departments and ministries, and so winding it up at this point seems like an appropriate thing to do. I am informed that there were very few submissions on this legislation, and that the Social Services and Community Committee, in fact, reported it back with the unanimous view that it did not need amendment. I’m not sure that in the almost 10 years I’ve been in the House I’ve seen a bill come back from select committee with no amendments recommended. So congratulations to the officials who were involved in drafting the bill in the first place. They obviously got it right. However, submitters did have some views that are worth sharing with the House.

They generally expressed support for some continuation within Government of the commission’s role of advocating for families, and they were concerned that by winding up the Families Commission, or SuPERU, that that advocacy function would disappear from Government. However, the select committee took the view that there are adequate ways to ensure that the needs and interests of families and whānau are addressed across a number of agencies, NGOs, and, of course, within the Government, as well.

They also noted that since 2004, when the commission first came into being, there has been significant change in New Zealand’s social sector, and acknowledged the commission’s work in recognising the diversity of New Zealand families. In fact, even this Parliament’s recognition of the diversity of New Zealand’s families has changed significantly since 2004, and it is a wonderful thing that we acknowledge a much greater diversity of relationships and of families than we did even just those few 14 years ago.

There was a submitter who was concerned that the independent policy advice and evaluation that the commission provides would be lost when it was disestablished, and submitters had mixed views on whether the Social Investment Agency is the best place for this work to carry on. Submitters also commented on the need for collaboration between Government agencies and NGOs. I think there’s a point that the member Nicola Willis, who made the previous contribution, made that it is important that we get the various bits of Government working together as much is possible. I think this is something that virtually every person who is elected to this House seeks to achieve—a greater connection between the various arms of Government. I think that is something for which there is cross-party support—that we need to continuously work to make sure that we are getting the very best out of our Government agencies and ensure that they work together on projects and strategies and don’t get stuck in their individualised silos. There is absolutely an expectation that Government agencies do work together, and the State Services Commission obviously has an important role in supporting agencies to get that joined-up thinking and that joined-up action happening.

Most submitters agreed that the commission produces useful, valuable, and meaningful information, and they stressed the importance of ensuring that that continues to be created, and, most importantly, that it is accessible. Of course, there’s no need for that function to disappear. The Ministry of Social Development is responsible for managing the functions of the commission and will ensure that in the future the various arms of Government play their part in ensuring that information is not only created but available and accessible for people, as well.

As I said—surprising though it is—it is a great pleasure to participate in a debate like this on a Thursday afternoon, where this House gets to demonstrate that, more often than not, we do agree. It’s something that the media and the public often don’t appreciate—that there are many bills like this one that pass through the House where there is general agreement around the House. It is certainly true: the time has come for the Families Commission to end, but not for its work to end, and I am confident that the work of the Families Commission will continue under the very excellent Government that New Zealand is currently very lucky to have.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will take a short call on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill today in its second reading. National clearly does support this bill, and the question is, “Why wouldn’t we?” The former Government actually initiated the social investment approach, and I’m very proud to have been part of that regime that took that initiative. I think everyone of us knows the stories that these social investment approaches are hoping to turn around, and I take note of the contribution by my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell and the story that he told. We all know stories similar to that one, where young people are caught in that ever-decreasing cycle of habitual and soul-destroying dependency on the State.

This bill has been through the select committee process, and I’m confident it was given due consideration, given it had a very shortened report-back time, but what it does is it actually just repeals the Families Commission Act of 2003, and that just has the effect of disestablishing the Families Commission.

The social investment approach is all about changing lives and breaking those cycles that we’ve talked about. I do acknowledge the current Government for giving it such high priority and such a high position on the Order Paper. I believe that that is because they do understand the importance of breaking those cycles and taking a new approach; or, the alternative is that they simply sat on their hands for nine years and had no other legislation ready to go.

The commission’s functions have already started to be transferred, and we have seen that through the non-legislative measures that have enabled that process to take place. Some of them have gone to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Social Investment Agency. I think it’s time for us to get on and get the job done, and I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I was privileged to be a member of the Social Services Committee that considered this bill. It’s often said that good things come in small packages. Having listened to some of the speakers today who haven’t had the privilege of sitting through the passage of this bill through a select committee, I think they may not get an understanding of just how significant it was.

As I was preparing today, I looked at the notes I made when this bill made its first reading. I was—I have to confess—one of those people Mr Lees-Galloway referred to who, when I first picked it up, thought that SuPERU was a four-wheel drive car. As I’ve been sitting reading the notes and reflecting on the select committee now, I just realise what a journey I’ve been on with this bill. Through the select committee I really did come to understand the whole Families Commission and what the whole purpose of that commission was—probably accentuated yesterday, when we had Mr Len Cook presented to the select committee again on another matter. For those that haven’t had the privilege of listening to Mr Cook and hearing him, the enthusiasm and the sheer intellectual grunt of the man, and his knowledge of the sector, is second to none.

Mr Mitchell spoke of light-bulb moments, and I think when you come into this House there are several of those. But, certainly, that was the light-bulb moment where everything came together for me: understanding—for those that are watching—just what it is that we are actually repealing here today. What was established—and I go back to what their research signalled, and the idea of it was that, yes, Government departments do operate in silos. Getting the data that, firstly, they generate and use, and making sure the quality of that data not only is useful to that department; it’s useful for the whole of Government, and, more importantly, that it fits into the strategy which I think we all agree we want to achieve, which is the elimination of poverty.

So when we look at the quality of that data, there was an interesting comment made, again, around that, from one of the submitters we spoke to who works closely with Government departments: we can’t always rely on the quality of the data that comes out for the simple reason that if we are not careful—and my colleague who is on the select committee, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, made a wonderful presentation until his last 30 seconds when he talked about the need to break everything down into its component bits to make sure that we have those set, tight targets for Government departments. Well, that’s where we differ, because I think the problem—and the new member Nicola Willis has worked in Wellington. She’ll know public servants, and she’ll know exactly what happens with public servants: you get what you want.

So if the Minister, if the Government, demands a certain result, a certain specified target from a department, that’s exactly what they’ll get. The data won’t be manipulated; the data will be gathered with a view to giving the Minister, giving the Government, exactly what they want. That is the problem with Better Public Services (BPS). The BPS that is fed into this is so often seen as the paragon of virtue; it’s so often seen as the saviour of all. Well, unfortunately, BPS—instead of Better Public Services, it meant cheaper public services, because what was left out was actually most important.

I saw it time and time again with Government departments I was involved with. Again, Ms Willis will have seen the same thing. She’ll have certainly heard it from public servants she’s spoken to at various social events, who are worried that the hard work, the very hard work, that our public servants do—and again, I was absolutely disgusted when I heard the previous Prime Minister talking about how public servants would sit with their feet back on their desk because all of a sudden these very tight targets were taken off them. Well, actually, that was an absolute insult to some very, very hard-working people. I hope, Ms Willis, like myself, that you were outraged, because many of the people you know in this town will be those very hard-working public servants who will not go back and put their feet back up; who are absolutely dedicated and who actually will be freed now to know that it’s what we’re trying to achieve that’s most important. What gets measured gets done, and that’s the problem. If we break it down to its component bits, that’s what will get done.

So I’ll come back to this bill and what this actually gives us the opportunity to do. It gives us now the opportunity to make sure that those Government departments that are going to pick up the slack, the Government departments that are going to be doing the work—and we all agree that it needs to go back, families; that actually moving it out into another department is not necessarily a good idea. What it actually does is it becomes a bit of a cop-out for those Government departments, saying that actually “It doesn’t matter if we’re so busy doing what’s demanded of us, what we’re going to be grilled about by every Minister, what we’re going to be grilled about every time we come to Parliament. We’ll only be punished for what’s not done and won’t be really rewarded for what’s done, and we won’t be sitting around with our feet up, because now what it will mean is we actually all know what it is that we want to achieve.”

Now, I’m not saying that that was wasn’t laid out clearly and I’m not saying that those who led the last Government didn’t want it, but it’s how we achieve it. You do not achieve it—there’s an old saying that you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it, and that’s what we’ve attempted to do right through the public sector. So all I’d say is that I’m really pleased to be part of a Government that is now going to—and this, again, I said that I had the light-bulb moment, as I sat through that select committee. I started to understand. Now, I’ve, again, seen so many of these public servants come through here, and they come through, really, under some sort of trepidation that they’re going to be beaten up for the things that they haven’t done. Well, I’ve got to finish—this actually represents a whole change that I’m really, really proud of. It’s going to be actually rewarding them for the things they have done. Have some faith in these people.

Again, Ms Willis, I go back—you socialise with these people. You know how hard they work. You know what they want to achieve. Give them the opportunity to do it. Don’t have them go to work saying, “Well, I’d like to end child poverty today, to be working towards that, but I haven’t got time because what I’m going to be working on is making sure this target is met. It doesn’t matter that this target is something that was dreamt up that’s actually not going to make an iota of difference, or certainly not a significant difference; I’m going to be so busy doing that that I can’t do that other stuff. It’s all right. The social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) are doing that.”

Well, now SuPERU are not going to be doing it. So what this Government is demanding, by actually setting it out there, the end—know what it is. I’m a great believer in that strategy means knowing what success looks like and working backwards. I think there’s an unfortunate belief, and I saw it in the last Government, that if you do all the bits then everything will come right, but it doesn’t. You know, leadership isn’t about that. Leadership isn’t about pushing down so deep that we actually count the pins—that we end up counting the paperclips. That’s basically what ended up happening.

Now, I know this is ending up becoming a bit—but listen, sit there, relaxed, please. Can I just say, don’t think that because you’re not demanding of public servants that they work 22 hours a day, two hours of which might be meaningful, the other 20 hours of which is actually ticking boxes—don’t think it’s going to all fall apart and that some of the very good work you did will fall apart. It won’t, because the transition of this now is to actually look at what success looks like, and what success is going to look like when we achieve it. Have a look at the bill. Have a look at the bill now, the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, which really, I’d say, in some ways could be seen to be almost a replacement for this, because instead of having one department measuring all here, we’re actually going to be measuring it each year. So when we actually do report back to the House and in various select committees we’re going to be on, when Treasury is going to be reporting back on these things, that’s actually going to be the replacement, because it’s more important to actually measure what success is.

So, look, relax guys. Relax over on the Opposition benches. I know and I can understand. If I was sitting there I’d probably be feeling a little bit the same: a little bit worried that, look, we’ve got these public servants scared, we’ve got them so that when they come to select committee, if they get it wrong—but, actually don’t worry. Have faith in them. Have faith in the people that Nicola Willis will probably see tonight socially. Have faith that those who live in Wellington and see them socially, that go and stand on the sideline with our kids sport and see them and see how hard they work—have faith that now we give them a job to do, that they know what success looks like, and that’s what’s going to be shared. Please, whatever happens, don’t ever go down; don’t let me see those scared, fearful, overworked public servants. They’re actually doing a very good job, but they’re doing the job that we’ve asked them to do, not necessarily the right job.

So as I see it now, the Families Commission, I think it’s done its job. Again, when I look at the work that it’s done—again, the number of submissions we had. Clearly, there was enough faith—although there weren’t many submitters, they all clearly had enough faith, but the fear probably came through. If you look through those submissions, one of the things that came through was “They’ve done a good job, we’re just a bit scared.”, and that, again, we’re a little bit scared that no one’s going to pick up the job. I’m confident. Everyone knows what success looks like. The work will get done. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 1 May.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment): I want to take a call on this bill and offer a few reflections, having heard the debate in the House last night and also reflecting on some of the commentary around the clarifications that have been outlined. The bill amends the Crown Minerals Act, and the purpose is to provide for the efficient allocation of rights to prospect for, explore for, and mine Crown-owned minerals, and the effective management and regulation of those rights. It also provides for the carrying out of activities in respect of those rights and a fair financial return to the Crown for its minerals.

The bill provides several clarifications, and I thought it was useful to ensure that all of those are captured within the record of Hansard. They are indeed outlined in the explanatory note, but I will outline some that were not referred to in the debate that has happened to date. The bill seeks to clarify the public notice and submissions process around changes to be made to a minerals programme that are consequential on changes made by the bill. It clarifies the applicable royalty calculations for certain permits granted before February 2008. It allows the delegation of the Minister’s powers in relation to licences granted under the Mining Act 1971. It clarifies which Ministers enter into access arrangements in respect of Crown land and land in the common marine and coastal area. It clarifies that an access arrangement is needed for access to schedule 4 land for minimum impact activities. It changes the permit classification for authorisations of geophysical surveys on adjacent land. It changes the process in relation to changes of control of permit participants that are permit operators. It clarifies processes in relation to changes of control of permit participants and makes them more workable.

It also clarifies time frames for notifying the revocation of permits. It clarifies that an extension of the duration of a permit cannot be denied as a result of a declaration under Section 28A of the Act, but an extension to the land area of a permit can be denied as a result of a declaration. Finally, it provides that the minerals programmes are not legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2012 and will continue to not be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. So you can see that the clarifications and the intent of the bill will be very useful. I’m sure that the sector will see this bill as a small but useful improvement to the way in which the Act is intended to function.

Now, I listened to the contribution, actually, of my colleague Deborah Russell, and she made some very good points in terms of the importance of having clarity at law in the way that things are intended to operate, so that the functionality of what is happening can be better improved. Now, this whole area is not one that I’m familiar with, but if I were to think about the issues from a legislative point of view, I don’t think we focus enough on just the checks and balances, certainly at a select committee level, of making sure that as things are reflected and written in law they are able to be implemented in a way that is functional and practical. So while we would, with the best intents and purposes, hope that when laws are drafted they’re drafted very well and at a perfect state, often we have to come back to moments like this, where we have to ensure that these clarifications improving the law can happen.

I didn’t intend to take a long call, except to say that by and large the contributions that have been made in the House have been positive, and I certainly look forward to the progress of this bill through the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First as we look to amend the Crown Minerals Act with this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to, I guess, change the framework around issuing permits to prospect, to explore, or to mine. Of course, New Zealand is a very mineral-rich country. We’ve got gold, silver, uranium even covered in this, and phosphate.

Simeon Brown: Oil and gas?

MARK PATTERSON: Oil and gas are covered in this, and we will not let this particular contribution be sidetracked, like some of the previous ones were, by going down that rabbit hole. It also covers phosphate, and I note that there’s a massive deposit of phosphate off the Chatham Rise that is in a state of play; companies trying to get at that. So there’s a wide spectrum of things that this bill covers.

The substantive part of this is, I guess, a stricter management regime. It gives the Minister powers to revoke a permit if a tier 1 holder—the ownership of that company has changed to under 50 percent for that particular entity. It also means the Minister has to approve if a tier 1 company changes or sells that particular ownership stake to a smaller company, and I understand this is quite prevalent.

I’ll come to a real life example, actually, of this in play. I think this is a really important aspect because these tier 2 companies need to have that oversight, because we need to know that they are capable of remediating any issues that may occur, particularly environmental ones.

I note Gareth Hughes’ example of the Rena, and while this wouldn’t be covered under this particular arrangement, it does show that when brown stuff hits the fan it hits the fan and you want somewhere to go. So the Minister has got the power to oversee this, to be the fence at the top of the cliff rather than running around being the ambulance at the bottom. He also has the power to delegate. Now, we had a little bit of a look at this. We weren’t quite sure exactly where that delegation went. We went back to the 1971 legislation, which says that goes to the Secretary of Mines, which we would assume is maybe the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but maybe that’s something that we will seek some clarity on through the committee stage.

It also raises the penalties to a maximum of 800K. That seems a sensible provision again. Again, the example of the Rena was used where there was only a very small $150,000 maximum under that particular Act that covered that, which was totally inadequate, so $800,000 seems a more appropriate figure and it does show that there are some consequences also for not complying with the Act in terms of notification of the ministry. This has also, as has been noted, been widely consulted with the industry: Petroleum Exploration and Production Association New Zealand, the significant commercial players—Greymouth Petroleum and the like.

There are also significant regulatory gaps and inconsistencies within the current regulations, and, particularly, it clarifies access arrangements between permit holders and landholders and also particularly on schedule 4 land, which we know is conservation and sensitive land. For example, Section 53(1) of the Crown Minerals Act—let me just have a look at this—outlines that for minimum impact activities no access arrangement is required. Then just below that, in section 53(3), it states that an access arrangement is required for minimum impact activity. So this clarifies what is clearly a very basic and fundamental error. This is a bill that probably is not going to make many headlines, but it’s a bill that’s not particularly significant until it is. If something goes wrong, it will become really important that the people that are responsible have the capacity to cater for whatever eventuality might come, particularly in the environmental space.

I’d like to give a recent example that I have actually been involved in myself. In Southland, we have the smelter at Tīwai Point, and recently we have had to deal with the aftermath of the aluminium dross—the by-product of smelting, which contains a variety of by-products, including some aluminium—for which the smelter had subcontracted another company. This particular company was taking the aluminium out and was processing the balance into fertiliser for agriculture, which was something that was seen to be a positive development. It was a good use of a by-product.

The smaller company, which could be likened to a tier 2 player within this current legislation, promptly went broke, leaving the mess to be cleaned up. The product was stored all around Southland, including in a warehouse right by the Mataura River, which has regularly flooded—three times in the lifetime of the local mayor. This was an environmental disaster waiting to happen. The water out of this stuff is incredibly toxic, and it would have taken the river out. With water, it was giving off ammonia and putting the local population in peril. So that just shows you how important it is that we can’t just assume that because a contract’s been written, a change of ownership of that company has the capacity to deal with the fallout.

Interestingly, in that situation, it had also happened in 2006. The taxpayer at the time—as we have been asked to do this time—and the local council were asked to step in and take some of the financial hit, and, of course, the ratepayers were very unhappy about that, as were the taxpayers. But, certainly, the warehouse owners, who have also had to dip into their own pocket after having been out of pocket already, are less than impressed as well. So maybe there’s some work we need to do in regulations that affect those situations.

In the case of the smelter, I will say that they did front up, as they should have. This was an entity that had been given $30 million during the global financial crisis, and I very much hope, actually, that when that particular incident happened, David Bennett and Brett Hudson were crying “Socialism!” and crying from the rooftops about private companies being bailed out by the Government, because I’ve heard a fair bit of that since I’ve been here. But their Government was pretty keen to give Rio Tinto $30 million at the time. So the least that the smelter could do in that situation was to repay the faith of the New Zealand taxpayer and the New Zealand people, and when we have been there in their hour of need, they were a contributor when we came knocking.

So that is, I think, just a real-life example of what can happen when we allow—not the initial permit holder, who may have the capacity, but this piece of legislation will make sure that the Government, the Minister, or the delegated authority by the Minister is able to oversee and be the fence at the top of the cliff, rather than the ambulance at the bottom, when we’ve got a catastrophe, particularly if it happens to be an environmental catastrophe. So that’s, I think, a significantly important part of this bill.

Whilst it might not be such a high-profile bill, it is very, very important—if it is ever needed—that we know that the people that are in charge of these assets will have the capacity to deal with that. So New Zealand First looks forward to supporting this bill, seeing it go through to the select committee, and taking the advice of the contributors on it, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Bills

Local Electoral Matters Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 11 April.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): When the Minister of Local Government introduced this bill and told the Parliament that it was a bill that would improve the performance of local government in New Zealand, that it would improve the participation rate of local electors in elections, I was pretty excited. I would say, “Good. They are things that I can subscribe to.” What I could not believe was, when we look at the detail of this bill, it will achieve the most minute of changes that we would have to call small beer—and that’s being insulting to beer.

Hon Andrew Little: Sounds like your RMA changes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let’s just talk about—Mr Little—what’s in this bill. The first thing it does is that it makes a very minor change to the way in which novel local government elections systems could be used. Here’s all it does: the current law allows us to trial electronic voting systems. What this bill does is allow it to be trialled in just a ward rather than a whole district. Big deal! And then we come to the second provision in this bill. This bill is going to allow, in the Electoral Act, information to be shared for analytical purposes on the age, profile, and date of birth of electors. Is that it? Is this the Government’s vision for improving local government in New Zealand? Give me a break.

What this bill tells you is how lazy and ineffective members of the Government spent their nine years. The programme of this Government’s six months in office should be brimming with substantial pieces of legislation. Let’s think about all of the important issues that we should be tackling in local government. We know we’ve got major infrastructure issues. We know there are key issues for communities up and down New Zealand. But any member of the Government, like the Minister, that truly believes this bill is going to do anything substantial in that local government sector is pulling the leg of this Parliament and of the public of New Zealand.

You see, when we look at the last bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, which was highly administrative, and when we look at this bill, you almost get the impression that the Government is having to filibuster up the time in the House because they’ve got no programme, they’ve got no policies, and they’ve got no vision for New Zealand, so we end up with pathetic administrative bills such as this as though that will provide some pretence that they have some sort of programme of reform for New Zealand. It is so disappointing. It shows such a vacuum of ideas from members on the Government benches. It shows just how hopeless they were in Opposition in having to develop policy.

When I look at this bill, I line it alongside the more than 80 reviews and inquiries that the Government has initiated since it formed the Government. The truth is—

Clayton Mitchell: I lost count of how many you guys did.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite have no damned idea. Look, there are more reviews than there are members of Parliament on the Government benches. If they really had their act together, this Parliament would be brimming with substantive bills that address the issues and challenges that a successful, fast-growing New Zealand that they inherited would be wanting to get on and do.

So I say to the members of this House that this bill is an embarrassment. Anybody who suggests, as the Minister of Local Government does, that making very technical changes about where you might be able to trial electronic voting, and which allows Statistics New Zealand to be able to share information about the age of voters and about their birthdates, is a bill—

Greg O’Connor: Read the child poverty bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new member of Parliament for Ōhāriu somehow thinks that this is the bill that’s going to save the country and ensure his re-election in 2020. I say to that member, “You’re kidding yourself, mate.” This bill is an embarrassment. It’s an embarrassment that the Minister introduced it, saying that it was going to make a substantive difference to the important $5 billion-a-year local government sector.

Here’s the real message for the Government. The provisions in this bill, that are so pathetic, should have been included in a far more substantive reform bill in local government. Let me just give a simple example. There’s a huge challenge for the local government sector across New Zealand, particularly around strong growth, and actually if we look at both population and economic growth, every single district of New Zealand is experiencing growth right now. How do we match together the development levies, the contributions from rates, the contributions from the Government, for making sure that we’ve got the roads, the houses, and all those things? If the bill had those sorts of issues addressed within it, I’d be enthusiastically championing and recognising the vision of the Government.

But the truth is, this is a Government that is vacant on any substantive ideas to address the issues that matter, and so we end up with these pathetic bills—these bills that will not make a dime’s worth of difference to the lives of New Zealanders out there, because they’ve failed. They’ve failed to do the homework. They’ve failed to provide the sort of vision that we need, to tackle the challenges that New Zealand faces right now. And so we end up wasting Parliament’s time with bills that mean diddly-squat.

So my challenge to the Government is to stop rolling out pathetic bills of this sort. Where there’s some legislative tidying-up to be done, please put them in a statutes amendment bill, please put them in a substantive bill. But six months into Government—if you take six months into the last Government, we had the contest, the argument between Ministers, as to who could get House time to get their reform bills in. It was one of the biggest arguments we had—we had such a busy agenda. This bill is an embarrassment.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Well, it’s a surprise, isn’t it? I can’t think what it would take to actually keep Nick Smith satisfied. I reckon if he won a cruise trip around the world and a Ferrari he’d say, “I get seasick, and fast cars are just plain dangerous.” It wouldn’t matter what Nick Smith was given, he wouldn’t be happy with what he had.

There are two local government bills—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members should refer to other members by their correct titles.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: The Hon Nick Smith, thank you. The real boost for local government comes with trialling the possibility of online voting, which is a real issue for engaging youth in local government and being represented. We have an incredibly low turnout, and we need local government to have the autonomy and the ability to explore the methods that work safely and securely with very valuable data. This is a bill that enables that process to happen.

In areas like Lower Hutt where I live, we see the lowest turnout of engagement from people who are young, who are Māori, and who are Pacific, on basic things like the annual plan, like things that want engagement from people on a daily basis. Having greater access to online services would enable that younger generation to engage with the daily practices that local government has and which directly affect their lives. This is why we need changes.

We’ve already seen a bill come through, along with this one, that’s restored the four well-beings.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.