Thursday, 10 May 2018

THURSDAY, 10 MAY 2018

THURSDAY, 10 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 Government will present its first Budget. On Tuesday, 15 May, the House will consider the third readings of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill and the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, and the committee stage of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Wednesday, 16 May is a members’ day. Thursday, 17 May is Budget day. The Minister of Finance will deliver the Budget speech soon after 2 p.m. The start of the 15-hour Budget debate will follow. I expect the House to rise at 6 p.m. and the Budget debate will resume on Tuesday, 22 May.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Just seeking some clarification. So we accept that the Budget is delivered next week. We’ve read the publicity about the Budget, but there’s nothing in the Budget that is all that urgent.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): It was very clear from my statement that there would not be urgency after the Budget. I did go back and look at the precedent regarding this and noted that previous Governments over the last nine years typically did do urgency after the Budget, largely to hike up taxes and levies.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Programme—Debt, Foreign Affairs Spending, Productivity, Taxes, and Trade

1. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Why will he borrow more money and increase taxes and levies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The acting Leader of the Opposition is wrong. Using the measure preferred by the previous Government for debt, we will reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office. The taxes and levies he is, presumably, referring to include one that the Government he was a part of increased six times, by a total of 40 percent. However, for the benefit of the member, the Government will need to spend more in this Budget because we have inherited enormous challenges after nine years of under-investment and neglect. Let me spell it out for him: the Department of Conservation has had staff cuts and has not been sufficiently resourced to effectively protect at-risk species. In education, we have aged buildings and funding shortfalls to cater for school roll growth. Early childhood education centres have seen their funding decline year after year in real terms. In health, 90 percent of DHB assets are in poor condition, and our medical staff are stretched and stressed. And the biggest scandal of all: the number of children living in poverty has not declined, with children living in cars and garages, doing their homework by torchlight. In the middle of a housing crisis, that member’s Government didn’t even bother to have a housing Minister. In the justice sector, we have leaky courtrooms that need replacing. Eight years into the rebuilding of Christchurch, we’re uncovering added rebuild costs as a result of that member’s Government penny-pinching across the board. I could go on and on, but I welcome more patsy questions from the member.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that New Zealand is currently falling apart?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is a wonderful country, but it’s one whose public services have been underfunded for nine years. That now stops.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he justify to Kiwis who face difficult spending decisions, week in, week out, that he needs to take more money out of their pockets and borrow more for future generations to pay when the economy is generating very large surpluses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I utterly reject the premise of that question. What this Government did was reverse tax cuts that had not come into force, and redirect that money to a Families Package that, when it’s fully rolled out, will improve the incomes of 384,000 families by an average of $75 per week. What I think New Zealanders think is that it’s time, after nine years of neglect, to do something about rebuilding the social foundations of our country.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If, as he says, there is such a need for spending, why did he think that this was the moment to massively increase spending on diplomats and foreign aid?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have done in this Budget is rebuild the capacity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—undermined by the Government he was part of—so that we actually have people out there representing us and negotiating trade deals, and we’re going to play our part in the Pacific region to make sure that the neighbourhood that we are part of is secure and develops well. I actually think New Zealanders will be quite pleased by that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, is the Government, in fact, borrowing—as the questioner asked—more money, when the previous Government set an all-comers’ record of borrowing, taking Government debt from $10 billion to over $78 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it’s a very good question, because the previous Government did inherit very low levels of debt. That increased by tens of billions of dollars. Using the measure that the Government prefers—that the previous Government prefers and this Government prefers—in terms of net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP, we will reduce that over five years. But it will take a little bit longer than the previous Government took, because we actually want to build some houses and improve some hospitals.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Good luck with that. Isn’t it true that we’ve heard a lot about spending more, about borrowing more, and about taxing more, but we haven’t heard much about how New Zealand will earn more to pay for it all, and does he just take that for granted?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, absolutely not, and what we have heard about is the excellent idea promoted by my colleague Megan Woods for a research and development tax incentive, that will actually mean that we’ll start to lift our innovation and see businesses improve and move up the value chain. The member is clearly anxious here, as he prepares himself for his future campaign in Epsom, to up his profile. What I can say is he’ll hear all about it next Thursday.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement in the pre-Budget speech today that “To transform our economy, we have to work smarter and get more out of every hour worked.” with his rejection earlier in the speech of the previous Government’s challenge to the public sector to deliver more for each dollar invested?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I said in the earlier part of the speech is while it, superficially, might sound good to ask a Government department to do more with less, what actually ended up happening under that Government was that they did less with less.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So productivity gains—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I gave the nod over here. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the member in time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can’t imagine why.

SPEAKER: Well, look the—I heard that member first and I gave him the nod. I—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he’s a loud mouth, but anyway.

SPEAKER: I apologise to the right honourable gentleman. I will give him the next supplementary.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So productivity gains are only something for the private sector—is that what he’s saying?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. What we’re saying is that when public services are underfunded year on year on year, that means New Zealanders don’t get the services that they need and deserve. That’s what this Government’s going to turn around.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth is going to get far more resources under this Government, because if the issue of earning more was important, how come it was that trade fell in the last nine years, under the previous Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, that’s right. There was a big game talked by the previous Government on trade, but the reality didn’t match that. What our Minister of trade has been able to do already is conclude a Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership that will create more investment and more jobs in New Zealand—far better than what happened under the last Government. We’re also looking at trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world. What this Government recognises is we actually have to invest in the people who will help that happen, rather than undermine them, as the previous Government did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m trying desperately to follow your up and down finger signals, but at the moment I can’t quite follow where you’ve actually got us at. So we start each day with 38. I think you gave us one, and then you’ve taken how many off?

SPEAKER: My advice is—one of us stands up. My advice is that the member’s team has gained two and lost three, and, therefore, is back to 37.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps for the next session of Parliament, during the two-week recess, it may be possible for Building Facilities to put some kind of digital signal up here, which would mean you’d just have to click instead of fingering.

SPEAKER: Well, I will consider the matter, and I’ll further consider, as I was asked by Jami-Lee Ross, to name the people in the National Party who are involved in losing the questions—[Interruption] Order! That’s just got them back to par—interjections from my right while I’m on my feet. But I will say to the member, there is a certain amount of up and down. For example, on Tuesday, as a result of interventions and inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Government, the National Party gained eight supplementary questions. Unfortunately, because of the interventions of the deputy leader over a period of time, they lost six of them. So it is a matter of net.

KiwiBuild—Advice, Crown, Developers, and Funding

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is the KiwiBuild: Buying off the Plans document correct where it says “there is insufficient funding for the Crown to deliver all 100,000 KiwiBuild dwellings by itself”?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: KiwiBuild is an ambitious plan to build 100,000 homes over 10 years, starting from 1 July 2018. We’d always intended for KiwiBuild to be a partnership between the Crown and developers, the Crown and iwi, builders, and other participants. We expect the capital to be recycled across the programme and be sufficient for the Government to build 100,000 affordable homes over a period of 10 years.

Hon Judith Collins: What did he mean when he told the media yesterday “the $2 billion will be spent many, many times over—over—the next decade”?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, what I meant when I made that quote was that as we build KiwiBuild homes, affordable homes, it will be recycled. You sell off homes and then you reinvest that money over and over again to build more affordable KiwiBuild homes, something that we are committed to doing, something that, over nine years, the member and her Government didn’t do, which was to build affordable homes.

Hon Judith Collins: If that is correct, then why do his officials state that there is insufficient funding to deliver on his promise for the Government to build 100,000 KiwiBuild homes?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, what that statement means is that the $2 billion on its own will have to be recycled over and over again, and we will be partnering with iwi, we will be partnering with private developers, to ensure that we build affordable homes. We are in a national housing crisis right now that was built over nine years of that Government. We are very committed to building houses and to housing New Zealanders.

Hon Judith Collins: Which is correct: the KiwiBuild: Buying off the Plans document, which says there is not enough Crown funding for him to build the promise of KiwiBuild homes, or himself, who yesterday said to the media, “I have no reason to think it won’t be enough.”?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We are committed to building affordable homes. We will be building 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years. While that member watched housing become more and more unaffordable and did nothing, we’re focused on making sure—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think we’ve had that.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he tell media yesterday that the Government “will build” the KiwiBuild dwellings, but his own officials’ document, released the day before, states that the Government will now only “facilitate” private investors to build the KiwiBuild houses?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, this Government is committed and will be building 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years. We will be partnering with developers to ensure that that happens. This Government will be partnering with iwi, and we will make sure that houses are built.

Marja Lubeck: How many homes were built in Auckland last year?

SPEAKER: No, no. Order! That might be an interesting question but it doesn’t flow from either the primary question or any of the supplementaries.

Hon Judith Collins: When he said to the media yesterday that the Government is going to build 100,000 KiwiBuild homes, did he really mean that the Government is going to subsidise private investors to build the homes that the Government has promised but can’t deliver? [Interruption]

Hon JENNY SALESA: We will be partnering with developers to ensure that this happens. We always said—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Mr Goldsmith, that may or may not be true, but it’s not appropriate for you to address me in that way. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, in terms of price points, the prices that we are looking at are maximum prices. If I can give an example from the member’s own electorate, the example of a KiwiBuild home, in terms of McLennan, we have said that we will be building a house that will cost around about $579,000 for a 3-bedroom house. In Auckland, over the last year or so—

SPEAKER: Order! Nice try. Any further supplementaries?

Fiscal Strategy—Capital Investment

3. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What capital investment needs has he been made aware of ahead of Budget 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In the build-up to Budget 2018, I’ve been made aware of the scale of capital investment needs we’ve inherited. Treasury reports that our district health boards will require $10 billion worth of Crown investment over the next 10 years. We’ve also inherited issues in the education portfolio, where a further $1.1 billion is needed over the next four years to pay for school roll growth. We’ve also had to make up for the $9.7 billion shortfall in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Fortunately, as I announced in a speech this morning, the Government’s net capital spending will total $42 billion over the next five years—that is $10 billion more than the five-year forecast by the previous Government before the election. We are committed to fixing the foundations of our communities, country, and economy.

Virginia Andersen: What has the Government done so far to address capital investment needs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve already made a significant difference with our 100-day plan. As part of last year’s mini-Budget, we allocated major capital investments that will make a long-term difference to the lives of New Zealanders. This included the $2 billion for our KiwiBuild project, and we have also restarted contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund after nine years of no Government contributions. This is crucial for us to safeguard superannuation for future generations.

Virginia Andersen: How is the Government funding these investments?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve taken a number of actions to ensure that we can afford all of our much-needed capital commitments. Firstly, we reversed the previous Government’s poorly targeted tax cuts, which would have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest. We’re also taking a more responsible debt repayment track, giving ourselves headroom to make these essential investments. And we have been able to reprioritise around $700 million of funding over the next four years by repurposing spending that does not fit with our Government’s plans or does not represent value for money. We also have a growing economy that is contributing to our resources. These actions have allowed us to free up resources so we can correct the social and infrastructure deficits we’ve inherited. You will see this reflected in the Budget when it is announced in a week today.

Immigration Policy—Campaign Policies, Deportation, Immigration Reduction, and Work Visas

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said this week that the Government’s current immigration policy is “exactly the same one we campaigned on”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes, and by way of example for the member, I’ll read the first line of the Labour Party election manifesto: “Labour will: Ensure that businesses are able to get genuinely skilled migrants when they need them.”

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which position on the campaign commitments is correct—that the 20,000 to 30,000 reduction was an estimate, or the Labour leader’s response, when asked last year, “Will you cut tens of thousands of immigrants coming into the country?”, was, “Yes; it has to be.”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Again, let me quote from the Labour Party manifesto: “Our approach will be to focus on the skills and people we need to make New Zealand more prosperous. We will make it easier for regions that have room to grow to attract the people they need while reducing pressure on Auckland and other regions that are feeling the strain of population growth. Under Labour, our immigration system will deliver for everyone who lives in New Zealand regardless of whether you were born here or have chosen to make New Zealand your home. In total, our changes are estimated to reduce net migration by 20,000 to 30,000.”

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did he advise Independent Tertiary Education New Zealand that he no longer intended to implement the policy of restricting visas for so-called low-level sub-degree courses, which were estimated to reduce migration by 6,000 to 10,000?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member will be aware that student visas, in-study work visas, and post-study work visas are an area of priority for this Government. We will have proposals available for public consultation in the very near future, and the member can look forward to that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister replied to the question, referring to post-study work visas. The question was about work visas for low-level sub-degree courses.

SPEAKER: My understanding is that the Minister actually referred to three groups, not only the post-study group. He did refer to the group the member’s talking about. I’m just going to check that—yes.

Kieran McAnulty: What have the regions said about the Government’s immigration policy?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have been up and down the country, and I’ve talked to employers in all of our major industries. Many of them have expressed concerns about the hastily rushed through changes that were implemented last year, but they also expressed extremely strong support for this Government’s plan to take a more regional approach to immigration, and they understand that this will take a little bit of time to get it right.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he or the Minister of Housing and Urban Development discussed with officials putting a pause on deporting individuals unlawfully in New Zealand who have construction skills?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is not a policy that this Government is pursuing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not, “Was that Government policy?”, but “Did he or the Minister of Housing and Urban Development have a conversation with his officials about that?”

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the Minister to address the question.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As the member will know, as a former Minister, ideas come up from all the over place. Ideas get considered. But that is not a policy that this Government is pursuing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that all but two of the 28 campaign pledges made by the Labour Party in 2017 do not require legislation, do not require appropriation, why on earth has he not pursued and implemented more than one of those other 26 policies?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I can understand why the member is eager to see some good immigration policy, after nine long years of waiting in the wilderness for something decent to happen. I understand why he’s hungry for it. But he will also understand that this Government has excellent officials working to support us to turn our manifesto commitments into policy that can be implemented, and the member will see the fruition of that work in the very near future.

Mycoplasma Bovis—Compensation, Government-Industry Agreements, and National Animal Identification and Tracing

5. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Mycoplasma bovis?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture): on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: Yes, in the context in which they were said and made.

Hon Nathan Guy: When he said on Radio New Zealand he hadn’t thrown out the biosecurity Government-industry agreements (GIAs) but all decisions had to be fair, does he still support GIAs in the existing agreements signed by 16 organisations?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: For the members, the GIA has not being signed by the New Zealand Dairy Board or Beef and Lamb New Zealand—

Hon Nathan Guy: It has.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It has not. I’ve been advised it has not been signed by the two industry players. All taxpayers and farmers believe that the cost should be shared in this response. It’s a reasonable expectation, and we want to make sure that it’s fair for all the players, including farmers.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ve lost the member’s name.

Hon Members: Andrew Falloon.

SPEAKER: Falloon. I’ve got Falloon. Andrew Falloon, thank you.

Andrew Falloon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does his 80 percent compensation target of yesterday include requests from farms where culling has begun but has not been completed, as is the case with a mid-Canterbury farmer who tested positive in January—culling is being carried over several weeks, but not a cent of compensation has been paid despite loss of income, crippling costs, and enormous stress?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I’m advised that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are working very hard with the industries. Obviously, as the Minister, I can’t get involved with the individual farmers, but I can report to that member that they are working very hard on that information that they’ve received through the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system and that for those that do not have it, MPI officials are sitting at the kitchen tables with farmers to identify where those cattle are. We are addressing all the proposals that are received in a timely manner. Like the Minister said, 80 percent of claims that are fully applied are being addressed.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is he aware that five to six farms are on the brink of bankruptcy and one farmer has reportedly asked, “What is it going to take—me stringing myself up from a tree?”.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: As I’ve said, officials are working actively as we speak to address the response from using the NAIT system, that that member introduced when he was in office, that hasn’t been working. We are working very hard. We have 250 officials working with farmers as we speak to address this response that that Government left—the mess when they were in Government last.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, I want to raise a matter for your attention—

SPEAKER: Is it a point of order?

Hon Shane Jones: I’m making a point of order. The matter pertains to the content of the last question. You are very judicious in terms of how you judge the appropriateness of that question. Suggesting that the current Minister is responsible for that sort of death is totally unacceptable.

SPEAKER: I think the tone of the point of order was not helpful. But I think that members do need to take a lot of care in the House when they are referring to matters like that. I think that members making that sort of suggestion will be seen by many mental health experts as being irresponsible, and members should contemplate carefully—should contemplate carefully—that sort of public approach. But, having said that, Mr Jones, it is, in the end, in this case, a matter of taste and judgment, and I don’t have responsibility for that at that level of question.

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

SPEAKER: Can I just ask the member—it would be really good if this issue did not become quite a big public issue, for the very reason that I’ve made my comments.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: And I accept that, but we have just taken that advice from you and I’m sure we’ll follow it, but I would point out to Mr Jones that during his sabbatical from this place, it was regular practice for the Opposition to start questions saying, “Is the Minister aware of”, and then give a first name and outline some very dire circumstances that the alleged person was in. Now, I think that was bad practice. The reality is today’s was a quote, and Mr Jones might also reflect on why one of his colleagues shot back across the House a completely unacceptable interjection about what the questioner should do with himself in regards to that activity.

Hon Nathan Guy: If he’s so concerned about NAIT compliance, why will it take him 60 days after seeing the published report before he gets any advice from his officials? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask members on both sides—this is a very serious matter. It’s very important for lots of farming families around, and I would prefer—in fact, I’m going to rule—that this answer is going to be heard in silence.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The main problem that is faced, as that member well knows, is that the modelling is trying to account for the animal movements that weren’t recorded in the national animal tracing system. However, the hard-working, diligent, proactive Minister for Biosecurity, Minister O’Connor, has tasked officials to work quickly on options for improving the NAIT system, including the reports that he’s receiving. We will make sure farmers are involved and understand the importance of that work. Unlike the previous Government, we are not going to muck around and—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether the Government would consider the possibility of a farm debt mediation bill—something which the Labour Party and New Zealand First have supported in the past, but which the National Party opposed?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Absolutely. We are a coalition Government of action and doing the right things by farmers throughout New Zealand, and they’re seeing it as we speak.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why are M. bovis cattle being trucked to Gore for slaughtering and ending up in Ōamaru’s general landfill when there is no food safety issues with the meat? Surely this seems wasteful.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: As I said, if we had the NAIT system properly implemented, then we would have had clear records on the movements of animals. We are looking at the NAIT to improve it so the tracking system is better than what we’ve actually inherited.

Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question—nothing to do with animal tracing movements. It was why—

SPEAKER: Well, the member actually did ask: “How come dead animals were being taken to some place other than where they were slaughtered?” That is a matter of where animals—you know, it’s not up to me to make a judgment about the quality of the answer, and I have no idea when tracing stops, and the member’s not going to sort that out by point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I know you can’t seek leave on someone else’s behalf, but I would like to use this point of order to indicate to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that we’d be most interested to see an urgent farm debt management bill brought to the House so that these poor guys who are suffering can be paid out—nothing will happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, despite the belated sense of responsibility of that questioner, that was not a point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I think we could say the same about both of them. Thank you—we’ll move on to the next question.

Defence Force—Aircrew Training Capability

6. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What progress, if any, has been made regarding aircrew training capability for the Royal New Zealand Air Force?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker—great question. Today, I announced that the first of four leased Beechcraft King Air 350 (KA350) aircraft has been certified for use by the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF), marking a step-change in the future of aircrew training. The new aircraft will replace the Beechcraft King Air 200 fleet, which provides RNZAF multi-engine pilot training and light airlift drop operation, such as transport and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The new fleet will also enable specialist crew training, such as navigation, flight training, mission management, and communications to be brought back to New Zealand after more than two decades of being based in Australia. In an additional boost to air force capability, two of the aircraft will be configured to assist in the important maritime surveillance task across our exclusive economic zone. A contract worth over $10 million per year for 10 years will be delivered with no increase in operating costs for the Defence Force. The remaining three aircraft will be delivered progressively over the next year.

Darroch Ball: What is the benefit to the air force of having the KA350 capability in New Zealand?

Hon RON MARK: Great question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: You can get to the Wairarapa quicker.

Hon RON MARK: We’ll get to that. We’ll get to that shortly, I’m sure. Aircrew training of New Zealand defence personnel has taken place in Australia since 1993, where the students were based for one year at a time. This brings that training home by having the KA350 capability in New Zealand. New Zealand Defence Force personnel required to undergo aircrew training will no longer need to travel offshore for long periods. This reduces the inefficiencies related to remote training both in relation to timing and cost. Additionally, it will mean that the extensive bridging training will no longer be required, and it will provide flexibility by having crew ready and accessible for other tasks here at home in New Zealand.

Darroch Ball: How does the lease of four KA350s affect local industry and jobs in New Zealand?

Hon RON MARK: More good news. The prime contractor for the KA350s is Hawker Pacific New Zealand Ltd. With 18 full-time employees working at Ōhākea, Hawker Pacific employ local and New Zealand – wide businesses to provide services and equipment—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How’re we going with the P-8s?

Hon RON MARK: —including flight interiors—put the question—national aircraft interiors, trade tools, Wormald, and NZ Safety. Mr Mitchell might remember that the lease also supports Marops, an award-winning and rapidly growing Auckland-based software company, which is working alongside of Hawker Pacific to integrate the training mission systems with the aircraft and the sensor suite.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: P-8s are dead.

Hon RON MARK: Ask the question.

Darroch Ball: How successful have recent pilot training capabilities projects been overall?

Hon RON MARK: Another great question. The arrival of the KA350s completes the full revitalisation of pilot and aircrew training activities for the New Zealand Air Force, bringing them—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Plenty of pilots, no planes.

Hon RON MARK: —right up to date to the highest performance in safety standards, Mr Brownlee. Basic training is now undertaken on the 11 new Beechcraft T-6C Texan aircraft, supported by simulators and other advanced ground-based training systems, which have also, thankfully, and spectacularly, allowed the regeneration of our air force aerobatic team the Black Falcons. Fantastic news, isn’t it? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, does the member want a question?

Hon RON MARK: Yeah, he does.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m very tempted to ask him if they can land at Masterton, or if they can go to Carterton.

Hon RON MARK: Mr Speaker, probably, yes. We’ll soon find out. Pop over, we’ll give you flight. But one thing I can tell you, Mr Speaker, they will not be able to take Mark Mitchell from his home, 20 minutes down the road from Whenuapai—

SPEAKER: OK. That’s enough. [Interruption] Order! All right, that’s enough. Thank you.

Schools—Christchurch Schools Rebuild Funding and Redcliffs School

7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his reported comments that he only found out in October last year that the $1.13 billion Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme was funded over successive years?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I stand by my actual statement that combined with the need to fund roll growth, urgent repair work, and there being no money left in the kitty to finish the Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme, we’re facing a whopping $1.1 billion hole over the next four years, and that is what I was alerted to upon becoming a Minister.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When did he know about the existing Canterbury school rebuild programme being appropriated on a yearly basis, and why didn’t he include it in Labour’s fiscal costings before the election?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member didn’t listen to my first answer. I knew about that when the Government announced it at the time, because I criticised their decision not to appropriate the funding for their commitment at the time, and it was included in our pre-election plans.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he saying that the Christchurch Press was wrong when they reported him and his press statement saying that it was a hole, when he is now saying that he did know about the Canterbury school rebuild and the existing funding that was to be appropriated? Who’s wrong: the Christchurch Press or him?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member clearly didn’t listen to my answer to the primary question. It was a reported comment, not a direct quote.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has he seen any reports recently in relation to Christchurch schools; and, if so, what did they say?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, indeed, I have. Just this week, I’ve seen a report that advised of the excellent decision by the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration to use the special powers of her portfolio to fast track the return of Redcliffs School to its community. The school’s been operating out of its community since June 2011 and were threatened with closure previously. It’s great news that it’s now returning to Redcliffs, and I am reliably informed that the school is ready to return.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why won’t he admit that he is classifying business-as-usual property spend and existing programmes like the rebuild for Canterbury as holes to cover up his negligence for either not including them in his costings or justifying why he won’t be able to deliver his education promises?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What was negligent was leaving a $1.1 billion capital deficit in the education budget—17,000 additional students who wouldn’t have a classroom or a school to go to if this Government didn’t pick up the pieces left behind by the previous administration.

Job Creation and Employment—Fruit Picking, Migrant Workers, Refugees, and Support for the Unemployed

8. LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by his statement in the House on Tuesday that “we won’t be punishing everybody who mucks up”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I come from a background where giving people a second, third, and fourth chance is the norm. Forgiveness means everything in our communities, and not giving up on people has been part of our lifelong philosophy. Of course I stand by my statement.

Lawrence Yule: Is an unemployed New Zealander “mucking up” if they refuse to pick fruit while receiving the job seeker’s benefit?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There are a lot of circumstances around different individuals. It’s not just black and white. It’s easy to make that assessment to start off with, but we have to look at what’s happening in the family, and I’m disappointed that that man from Ngati Kahungunu is talking in this manner.

Lawrence Yule: Should unemployed New Zealanders turn down fruit picking because they don’t believe it is dignified work?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, a lot of circumstances come in to play. This Government is committed to people having dignified work. Doing what the member said in terms of getting out there—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Picking fruit—say it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, no, absolutely—picking fruit is dignified work. There’s no shame in picking fruit. However, a lot of circumstances come in to play, and that member should know that. It’s not easy, sometimes, to move 50 kilometres. It’s not easy, sometimes, to walk away from your family. It’s not easy for people to give up everything just to pick fruit.

Tamati Coffey: Has the Minister made any other statements recently about supporting people that make mistakes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve made multiple statements as the Minister of Employment around—

Hon Member: Multiple mistakes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve made multiple statements, I should say, as the Minister of Employment—

Hon Member: You were right the first time.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —I did say that, yeah—around encouraging our communities and our employers to not give up on people who need greater support, to keep them connected to the workforce. I’ve encouraged them to provide pastoral care—something the National Party has no idea of—so that they will look at all avenues that are barriers to employment and help our communities work through that, whether that’s through their travel, accommodation, childcare, or community commitments, or health. The Government’s intention is to lift people up, not keep them down. Punitive measures are not the answer here.

Lawrence Yule: Is it the Government’s policy to use refugees to fill labour shortages, as proposed by Iain Lees-Galloway in a recent visit to Hawke’s Bay?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We know we have a crisis at the moment. We’ll work through short-term solutions to achieve our goal. We know there’s a gap there—there’s a hole. We’ll do what the National Party was doing for nine years and fill the gap for a short while, but we’re committed to local labour and we’re committed to a comprehensive strategy in terms of employment down there in the Bay of Plenty, and we’re committed to employing New Zealanders first.

Lawrence Yule: If it is good enough for refugees to pick fruit, why is it not good enough for unemployed New Zealanders to pick fruit?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Can I just say I’m stunned that the former Mayor of Hastings and a Kahungunu man is asking such stupid questions. The reality is because, as he well knows, people have big families, people have commitments, people can’t just move at the drop of a hat like that person, who has an uncaring and insensitive attitude to his local people. He should be ashamed of himself, and I hope Ngāti Kahungunu totally dismisses him. Some Ngati Porou are in the House, and I’m sure they’re shocked at his questions too.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to remind the Minister—and it’s a ruling that hasn’t been pulled out for a while—that it is not appropriate to refer to people in the gallery. I think we allow it more than we used to, but calling individuals or groups of individuals into matters which are not directly related is certainly outside previous Speakers’ rulings, thank you.

Lawrence Yule: When he said on Tuesday, “We won’t go down the easy route and just hire foreigners all the time”, why did he think it is easier to hire foreigners than encourage unemployed New Zealanders into gainful employment?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We have a shortfall at the moment, and we’ll do what we do. We’ll do what we have to do right now, but we have a strategy that we’re going to roll out. We’re working with the growers, we’re working with the employers, and we’re working with the unions. The reality is we have a bit of a crisis going on. You have to do what you have to do to get through the problems, as that member should know.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?

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

SPEAKER: A point of order—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’ll wait until the end of the question, because it may get worse yet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: No, no. Order! Can the member resume his seat. I’m going to ask Mr Brownlee to stand, withdraw, and apologise for his misuse of the point of order system.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister give an assurance to whoever might pick the fruit, local or from outside of the Hawke’s Bay, that when they get down to Hastings as part of their employment contract they will not be poisoned by the water?

SPEAKER: Order! The member does not have responsibility. [Interruption] I think the member has—[Interruption] Order! I’m ruling that, like Ms Salesa’s approach earlier, it’s in the category of a nice try and might even have made his point, but it’s not an area of responsibility for employment contracts.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d disagree with you that it was a nice try. There was nothing nice about that at all, and the whole tenor of the answer from the Minister who was being questioned quite legitimately—if you look at the questions that were asked, there were no political barbs in them, no innuendo in them, just straight questions about matters that relate to his portfolio and what he has been saying publicly. Yet throughout, he resorted to very personal attacks on my colleague. Now, while that doesn’t particularly bother us, it does, I think, reflect poorly on the Parliament, and I think Ministers who resort to that need to have it called to their attention that that style of answer does very little for either their own prestige, the prestige of the Government, or, in fact, the elucidation of Parliament itself.

SPEAKER: I think I’m just going to reiterate a comment that I made earlier that both in questions and in answers I can’t be—unless something is outrageous—an arbiter of taste. I think the member is correct in his characterisation of the replies, but we are talking about an area where there is, I think it’s fair to say, a fierce contest of philosophies, and that was playing out both in the questions and in the answers. But I think members have all heard what Mr Brownlee said, and wise Ministers would take it on board.

Social Services—Data Collection and Data Use

9. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Social Development: What data-related announcements has she recently made?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Monday, the Government announced that we will be undertaking broad consultation with the social sector, seeking New Zealanders’ views on social well-being and how to best promote and use people’s personal information. From May to August, the Social Investment Agency will be engaging with the social sector in 28 locations across the country. This initiative is the start of building a systematic approach to the way we work with data and wider evidence to improve how Government makes decisions and delivers services.

Greg O’Connor: What else is being done to ensure improved practices around data use?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has developed a framework that it is putting into use that ensures privacy, human rights, and ethics are built into the way they develop new services. It is a set of smart tools that will help those designing services to pause right from the start and ask the vital question: just because we have the information, is it right to use it?

Greg O’Connor: Why is this work important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Data and analytics have a valuable role to play in designing and delivering services that work for people. However, they must be used responsibly and carefully. It’s important that the public trusts how Government uses data and is part of ensuring the rules that govern it—a concept that the previous Government failed miserably to understand. As a Government, we are taking tangible steps to build a culture of treating people with dignity and respect. This includes respecting people’s privacy, human rights, and maintaining high ethical standards when it comes to their information. The fact that MSD’s work has been welcomed and endorsed by the Privacy Commissioner speaks volumes.

Police—Authorised Officers, Front-line Officers, and Volunteer Rural Constabulary

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his answer to Oral Question No. 10 yesterday, in relation to new police, that “all 1,800 work on the front line”?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Absolutely.

Chris Bishop: How many of the 1,800 extra police will be able to respond to family violence call outs, burglaries, and assaults?

Hon STUART NASH: It depends how many are on duty at the time.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct, very straight, non-political question, and I think it deserves better than that trifling answer.

SPEAKER: Well, the member asked a question; he got a response. It was within the Standing Orders. The member doesn’t have to like the answer, but he can follow it up with further supplementaries.

Chris Bishop: Is he saying an authorised officer—for example, a police forensic accountant, as he mentioned on Tuesday—could be deployed to arrest perpetrators of family violence and burglary?

Hon STUART NASH: Authorised officers have specific powers under the Policing Act 2008, section 24. Authorised officers investigate complex electronic or financial crimes. They tackle money-laundering, terrorist financing, and other serious crimes. This is very much front-line crime-fighting in 21st century policing.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the new qualities and skills that the New Zealand Police are looking for from these new front-line officers?

Hon STUART NASH: We need a police service that is fit for the 21st century and the increasing transnational and cyber nature of organised crime. For example, the dark web is the front line for some areas of organised crime. We need police officers with highly sought-after skills in cyber crime and forensic accounting. We need police officers who can investigate money-laundering, terrorist financing, and other serious offences. This is very definitely front-line crime-fighting in 21st century policing.

Chris Bishop: Is he now asking New Zealanders to accept that people working in back offices on forensic accounting, who don’t have the power to arrest offenders by themselves, are front-line police officers?

Hon STUART NASH: Mr Bishop, I think your definition of “front-line police officers” is a little bit 20th century. Mr Bishop, can I please—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be appropriate if the answer was addressed to the Chair—in this case, the Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, the member was mentioning the member, but he at least was making his comments in my direction, and I regard that as good enough.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, he wasn’t. He was looking over there again.

SPEAKER: He might have after he started. He started his question appropriately, and he will now start again, replying to the supplementary.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are delivering 1,800 more police officers than that Government delivered in seven years. Let me quote the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement: “Law and order: Strive towards adding 1800 new Police officers over three years and commit to a serious focus on combating organised crime and drugs.” This is exactly what I am doing.

Chris Bishop: Is it cheaper or more expensive to train and hire an authorised officer, relative to a sworn police officer?

Hon STUART NASH: There is a vast range of skills that 21st century policing needs. There are a number of sworn officers who need to go through the 16-week training at the Royal New Zealand Police College, and then there are other authorised officers who will have very specific skills around 21st century crime-fighting. That does not mean that one is front line and the other isn’t. This is front-line 21st century policing.

Chris Bishop: I’ll ask the Minister again, because he didn’t even address that—

SPEAKER: Order! That was just a reflection on me. If he didn’t address it, he would have been told to do it. He did address it, and the member is lucky. He can ask his question again if he wants to, but I’m making it clear that it is an additional question. He’s using another supplementary.

Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it cheaper or more expensive to train and hire an authorised officer, relative to a sworn police officer?

Hon STUART NASH: It really depends on their skills.

Chris Bishop: Will he be counting the members of the volunteer rural constabulary—or “vigilante cops”, as some have called them—as part of his 1,800 extra sworn police officers?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to give the member an opportunity to rephrase his question without the offensive comment to volunteers in New Zealand rural areas.

Chris Bishop: Will he be counting members of the volunteer rural constabulary, as mooted in the Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement, as part of his 1,800 extra sworn front-line police officers?

Hon STUART NASH: No.

State Services (Open Government)—Open Government Strategy, Releasing Information, and Report

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by her statement that this Government will be “the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Minister re-dated or blocked nearly all—

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member meant “redacted”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Redacted—why has she redacted or blocked nearly all of the report on the open Government strategy, recently released under the Official Information Act, and does the Minister see an irony in reports on the open Government strategy being kept secret?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the second part of the question, no. In answer to the rest of the question, the clue was in the middle bit of his question—that it was released in accordance with the Official Information Act and the criteria set out in the Official Information Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister telling the House that by re-dating—

SPEAKER: Redacting.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —redacting all of the open Government strategy—

SPEAKER: Can the member start again, please?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister advise the House of why it is acceptable to block out all of the Government’s open Government strategy in the name of being the most open and transparent Government ever?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Redacting is part of the Official Information Act. I encourage the member to read the Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is it necessary for reports to her on the open Government strategy to be kept secret?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because they were released in accordance with the Official Information Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it consistent with the Government’s commitment to be the most open and transparent Government ever for the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media to refuse to release a key letter between the Radio New Zealand chair and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment chief executive, when the document has already been made public by the select committee?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m unfamiliar with the details of that particular case. If the document’s already in the public domain, then there’s no need to release it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain as to why she would give the reason for not releasing the document as the importance of confidentiality, when the select committee has released that very letter?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It could well be an issue of timing. I’m not familiar with the exact details of that issue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does making the Government’s open Government strategy secret somehow comply with the Government’s ambition to be the most open and transparent Government ever?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is doing a number of things in this area, but I’d encourage the member to read the Official Information Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the Official Information Act request provided to my office in which the Government’s open Government strategy is kept secret.

SPEAKER: Can I just check: is the member seeking to table the request or the response?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am seeking to table the document that’s been provided to my office, under the Official Information Act, where the bulk of it has been kept secret.

SPEAKER: The response. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. The document can be tabled.

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

Consumer Credit—Practices and Regulation

12. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What advice has he received since commissioning the targeted review of consumer credit regulation in December last year on the extent of consumer credit-related harm in New Zealand?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): An analysis of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has already found concerning evidence of predatory lending from unethical practices in debt collection and truck shops. Practices such as excessive interest rates, fees, and high-cost borrowing are trapping New Zealanders in debt spirals that are long term and have detrimental impacts. Consumer advocates are expressing strong concerns at the high cost of credit and inadequate assessments of the affordability of loans. People are being provided loans that they are not being able to pay back and are drawn into situations where the cost of the resulting debts is many times the original, due to interest rates and penalty charges. I think most New Zealanders would be appalled at some of the practices of some lenders, who tend to prey on the most vulnerable in our community.

Dr Duncan Webb: Is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, in its current form, fit for purpose?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No. In 2015, a number of changes were introduced to consumer credit legislation, and while some lenders have improved disclosure and information, I have spent time engaging with budget advisory groups, citizens advice bureaus, and NGOs across New Zealand, who are saying that, at the coalface, they are seeing lenders continuing to prey on vulnerable consumers, with predatory practices and unfair contracts. Such behaviour is creating debt spirals and significant financial stress, and the Government is working on appropriate protections for consumers in the place of current legislation.

Dr Duncan Webb: What action will the Government be taking to protect consumers from predatory lending practices?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I hope to see legislation introduced by the end of the year that will address predatory lending and some of the unethical practices I’ve spoken about. I want to see New Zealanders well-informed and equipped with the best tools to navigate all the financial decisions that come their way. In addition to reforms, this Government is also committed to tackling many of the issues that contribute to financial stress, lifting financial capability, and building a strong and inclusive economy that delivers for all New Zealanders.

Bills

Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Typically, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I would stand before the House today presenting Treaty settlement bills—or, at least, one of them—but today is the beginning of a new era, the first of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act legislation. This bill represents a new opportunity for Māori and the Crown to further our relationship.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to members of Ngāti Porou who have travelled to be here today to attend the first reading of this bill. Nau mai, haere mai ki tō tātou Whare.

I want to begin by paying tribute to the hapū of Ngāti Porou and their unflagging determination in ensuring the Crown honours its commitment to them. The dedication shown by this iwi has been paramount to this bill’s success. I want to acknowledge all the people who have contributed to the deed of agreement and the deed to amend. You have worked for many years to hold the Crown to account for the commitments formalised in 2008.

First, it is important to acknowledge the resolve of the members of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. I want to acknowledge Dr Apirana Mahuika, the late Dr Mahuika. It is with sadness we remember his passing, so recent in our memories. E te rangatira, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[To the great chief, farewell, farewell, farewell.]

As chair of the rūnanga and staunch advocate of the hapū of Waiapū, this bill before the House today would not have been possible without Dr Mahuika’s vision and determination. He had both the determination to have the rights of the hapū of Ngāti Porou protected and the vision to ensure this was done while protecting the legitimate rights of all New Zealanders.

I must also pause to remember other leaders within Ngāti Porou—rātou kua whetūrangihia [those who have passed on]—while the work for this bill was going on. So many are in our thoughts today. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou.

[Let us leave those who have passed on and return to us, the living.]

I’d also like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, Christopher Finlayson. He took the Crown’s relationship with Ngāti Porou through the review and repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and into the enactment of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

To say that this bill has had an interesting history would, of course, be an understatement. It is the outcome of many years of hard work and dedication. The bill is unique, as it spans the history of two Acts and three Governments, and its story begins in 2004, under the old Foreshore and Seabed Act. In 2008, Ngāti Porou were the only group to reach and sign a foreshore and seabed deed of agreement with the Crown. A bill was introduced to the House to give effect to that deed of agreement in September of that year. Due to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, this bill was not progressed beyond introduction. From the outset of that review, Government consistently stated that it would honour and fulfil its obligations in the deed of agreement.

Following the completion of the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the Crown and ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou agreed that the 2008 deed of agreement would be amended, where required, to reflect the enactment of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. In 2017, the hapū of Ngāti Porou ratified the amended deed of agreement, and it was signed by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown late last year.

The bill before the House today gives effect, in part, to the amended deed of agreement. Rather than amend the 2008 bill, a new bill will replace it. This is the bill before the House today. Its purpose is to contribute to the legal expression, protection, and recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana. The bill does this by recognising the unbroken, unalienable, and enduring mana of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana. It provides legal mechanisms that support the expression and protection of the mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou. However, it also recognises the Crown has a responsibility to ensure public access to, and the continuation of, lawful activities and uses of the common marine and coastal area.

Before I go further, I want to explain a couple of the key terms in Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) required to understand the effect of the bill. Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou are the hapū who are party to the amended deed of agreement. This bill does not apply to the hapū who did not ratify, or to hapū and iwi who are not part of Ngāti Porou descent. Ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou is the rohe moana of ratified hapū in the common marine and coastal area. These areas extend out to 12 nautical miles, and exclude private titles. The bill applies only in this area. The Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) guarantees public rights of access, fishing, navigation, existing resource consents, and other lawful activities. In this regard it is no different to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

This bill will provide a legislative regime for the recognition of their customary interests in the common marine and coastal area. In providing this regime, the Crown honours its commitment to the 2008 agreement. I am dedicated to seeing that the Crown does this. The bill’s mechanisms for recognising the customary interests of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou are similar to those found in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. However, they have some unique features that reflect the agreement reached with the hapū in 2008. It provides for mechanisms that have been negotiated and agreed between ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown that require legislation to bring them into effect.

There are two forms of recognition for these customary interests. Part 2 of this bill sets out instruments that will apply across the whole of the hapū’s rohe moana. Part 3 of this bill sets out instruments that will apply only where customary marine title is recognised in a particular area. The process by which customary marine title and other customary interests can be recognised is set out in Part 4 of the bill. This is similar to that in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. The statutory tests that need to be met to recognise customary marine title are the same as in the current Act. Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou can apply to the High Court for a customary marine title, or to the Crown for an agreement.

There are provisions within this legislation that are not available under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. These provisions reflect the Crown’s commitment to the original deed of agreement, in so far as possible. I would like to draw to members’ attention some of the instruments that this bill provides which are not available under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. The first of these provisions is that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have up to two years from enactment to apply for customary marine title. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act had a deadline of 3 April 2017. This variance ensures that ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have sufficient time to apply for recognition of rights.

Secondly, wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu areas can be agreed or ordered by the court across the whole application area, not only in the customary marine title areas. However, tests must be met for wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu areas to be applied and are the same as the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. There is a customary fishing regulation-making power, at clause 49. Hapū-based fisheries management committees will be created. These committees can prepare fisheries management plans and propose by-laws in customary marine title areas—similar to that under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations) 1998—but it is the Minister who then approves those plans.

Finally, a statutory overlay provides for an automatic right to be consulted over resource consent processes under the Resource Management Act, and processes under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 within any recognised customary marine title area.

As you will all now realise, this bill’s rich history with the Crown is unique. It will be the only bill that provides for rights that were afforded in 2008, and also brings aspects of that deed into the new legislative framework. It ensures the integrity of the agreement, and the Crown is upheld. I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National supports this legislation, which is perhaps not surprising given that I was the one who signed the deed of amendment on 9 August of last year.

Can I begin by endorsing everything that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said in his excellent speech, starting with his very warm tribute to that late, great New Zealander, Api Mahuika. I must confess I still miss, even today, some years after his death, that cheery “Kia ora, Chris” phone call that I used to receive from him. He didn’t bother to say who he was because he knew I knew immediately. I learnt so much from him. I regarded him as one of my mentors, along with the gravelly voiced Tīpene O’Regan from the South. Both of them are great New Zealanders, and the memory of Api Mahuika will live on for many, many years. I pay tribute to Ngāti Porou and the current leadership in the gallery. Can I particularly pay tribute to Api’s son, Matanuku Mahuika, who really did all the grunt work on this legislation over a number of years.

This has been accurately summarised by the Minister in his speech. It is very much a one-off piece of legislation, a sui generis piece of legislation reflecting the intent, on the part of the Crown, to honour the original deed of settlement which was signed, as the Minister said, on October 2008 and reflecting all the changes that have occurred since then. I don’t want to, sort of, rake over old coals or rip scabs off things or get into contentious material, but it’s worth summarising just how we got to where we are today. It started with June 2003, when the Court of Appeal released its decision in the Ngāti Apa case and held that whānau or iwi or individuals could apply to the court for an order that customary title existed in the foreshore and seabed. That gave rise, for various reasons, to legislation—the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004, one of the more contentious pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with. When we became the Government in 2008, we said we would review that legislation, and that gave rise to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act of 2011.

I admire the current Minister for a number of reasons, but I particularly admire him for his courage when he was the president of the Labour Party, in that period between 2008 and 2011, for standing up and saying, “Actually, we may have got that one wrong.” I thought that his concession at that time was very bold, very noble, and very dignified. So the marine and coastal Act was passed, and it restored to Māori the right either to go to the court for an order for customary title or apply to the Minister of the day to negotiate an order which would be given effect to through legislation.

As the Minister said, one of the points of difference is that there’s a two-year limitation period, under this limitation, for the various hapū of Ngāti Porou to apply for what is very similar to customary title under the marine and coastal Act, whereas the limitation period under the marine and coastal Act was six years, and that expired last year. Not surprisingly, given that there was a limitation period, there were quite a number of eleventh-hour applications, which excited the Hobson’s Pledge people and people like that.

The reality of the matter is there was a limitation period which was put in the marine and coastal Act, for very good policy reasons, and it was almost inevitable that there would be eleventh-hour applications. Some are very good applications; others are extremely weak, and the courts can sort those out, or the Minister can sort those out, in the years to come.

The important points to note are, first, that—and the Minister’s absolutely correct—uniquely, Ngāti Porou had actually signed with Sir Michael Cullen a deed of settlement in relation to their foreshore and seabed matters on 30 October 2008. Legislation had been introduced before the dissolution of that Parliament, and for many years it lay on the bottom of the Order Paper.

When the review was under way, or was beginning, I phoned Api Mahuika and I said, “Look, I know your legislation’s there, but it would make sense if the matter could be delayed for a number of months to enable the review to be conducted.” Sir Eddie Durie was leading that review, with Professor Richard Boast and one other. It was just illustrative of that man’s generosity of spirit on behalf of his iwi. He spoke to his iwi and said, “Yes. We will hold fire until the review takes place, but we want to make sure that we’re not disadvantaged in any way.” And I gave him that assurance.

Then, after the new legislation was passed, the task for the Ministry of Justice officials and the negotiator was to marry into the new framework what had been contained in the original deed of settlement. So there won’t be any legislation like this ever again, I shouldn’t have thought, because all other matters are going to be dealt with under the marine and coastal Act 2011.

The only other iwi that came close to Ngāti Porou in relation to an agreement under the old foreshore and seabed legislation was Te Whānau-a-Apanui, but they hadn’t actually signed, and so they missed out. I hope, in the very near future, their rights can be determined under the marine and coastal Act, because I consider that that is one of those areas of New Zealand where there is plenty of customary title, but I don’t want to pre-judge the situation.

So how do we deal with this? The key to it is in Part 1, the preliminary provisions, clauses 6 and 7. What that does is say that the Ngāti Porou legislation, when passed, is going to apply to the hapū of Ngāti Porou instead of Parts 3 and 4 of the marine and coastal Act 2011—Parts 3 and 4 deal with the customary interests that the Minister has referred to and various administrative and miscellaneous matters. So they will have no application to the hapū of Ngāti Porou, but it will be this legislation that deals with those matters. Any non-ratifying hapū of Ngāti Porou will be entitled to rely on the processes under the marine and coastal Act 2011 until they decide—as I hope they will—to join up to the regime provided by this legislation. The second preliminary provision which is critical is that Part 2 of the marine and coastal Act will continue to apply, with a couple of minor amendments.

So I endorse what the Minister has said. I’m really pleased that we’ve reached the stage where the legislation has been introduced, because it weighed heavily on me that for so many years every Order Paper that we had in this House had the Ngāti Porou legislation at the end. I think it was lower than even the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, which sat there for the same number of years. So it’s really good that this matter is now before the House. The National Party supports it and endorses what the Minister said—that it should go to the Māori Affairs Committee as quickly as possible.

I’ve heard what the Minister has said about reviewing the marine and coastal Act. Look, it’s settled law now. Applications have been filed. The last thing Parliament needs is to be revisiting the marine and coastal area Act, because, at the end of the day, everyone agreed that the foreshore and seabed legislation wasn’t working. People needed to have their day in court, and uninvestigated customary title could be reviewed by applicants. So I actually think, notwithstanding what some neanderthals outside may think, that we’re in a good space with this legislation, but Ngāti Porou deserve this special treatment because of their generosity of spirit in 2008.

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.

Tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao marama, tihēwa mauri ora.

Tuatahi māku e tautoko atu ana i te mihi whakatau ki a koutou e ōku rangatira - Hikurangi Maunga, te maunga haramai, neke mai ki runga i tēnei Whare o tātou.

Tuarua e tika ana ki roto i ngā tapuwae o te tupuna Api Mahuika i takahia ki runga i te awa o Taumārere mō ngā mahi a te hāhī te take.

Ka tautoko ahau i ngā whakamoemiti, i ngā inoi tonu ki te Kaihanga kia tiakina mai tātou katoa ki roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei nohoanga.

Tuarua, kia tiakina mai te haerenga o tēnei pire. Kua kōrero mai ngā minita o te Whare nei i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire. Ko tōna whakapapa i tīmatahia i tērā atu tau, anā, kō atu i te tekau tau ki muri. Iāianei nā, ā, ka tae mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare, nō reira ko te inoi tonu ki te Kaihanga kia tiakina tēnei pire me ōna ringaringa katoa ka tae atu ki tōna whakatutukitanga.

Ā ka tautoko tonu au i ngā tangi mōteatea atu ki te hunga mate. Kua wahaina mai te Whare i te tū o te rangatira a Apirana Mahuika ki roto i ngā mahi nei. Ā, ka tautoko ahau i tērā o ngā tangi mōteatea atu ki a ia me te tangi atu anō hoki ki tētahi o ngā rangatira o te Whare ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake, arā, ko Parekura Horomia.

Ko rātou katoa wēnei tū āhuatanga i whakaritea mai, ka taea e Ngāti Porou, otirā, tēnei Whare te āta kōrero i ngā take o te wā nō reira ko ngā maharatanga ki a rātou, haere, haere, haere. Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou e ōku rangatira - tēnā koutou.

E tautoko atu ana ahau i te kōrero i tīmatahia e te Minita a Anaru Iti i mua i te aroaro o te Whare i te rā nei. Te tini o ngā āhuatanga kei roto i tēnei pire. Ko ētahi ka hopungia e au hei kaupapa kōrero māku i te rā nei, ko te wāhanga ki ngā hapū, ko te wāhanga ki ngā ingoa Māori ka whakahokia, kāhore, ehara i te mea whakahokia, kāhore, engari ka whakamanangia e te ture ki roto i te rohe o Ngāti Porou. Tuatoru, ko te huarahi kei mua i ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou ki te mahi ngātahi me te Karauna mō ngā take e pā ana ki te takutai moana, ki roto o Ngāti Porou.

Heoi anō, ka hoki atu ahau ki taku take tuatahi ko tērā take, e pā ana ki ngā hapū ki roto o Ngāti Porou. E harikoa ana au i a au e pānui ana i te pire nei mō te āhuatanga ki ngā hapū, ahakoa ko ētahi kua mahue ki waho, ko te nuinga ka ū tonu mai ki te kōkiritanga o Ngāti Porou ki roto i te kaupapa nei. Kua roa rawa ngā hapū, puta noa i te motu whānui e hiahia ana kia kite mai te kāwanatanga i wā rātou ake mana motuhake. Ka kite tātou katoa ki roto i tēnei pire, āe, ko Ngāti Porou whānui te waka e kōkiri ai te kaupapa nei, engari kei ngā hapū te mana motuhake o te wāhanga ki a rātou, o te wāhi ki a rātou, o ā rātou ake takutai, o ā rātou ake whenua. He mea mīharo tēnā, he mea mīharo tēnā. E mōhio ana au ko tēnei pire, ehara i te mea ka tutuki ki raro i ngā take whakahaere o ngā tatūnga kerēme e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, engari mō te pire hou e pā ana ki te takutai moana; engari ko tāku e hiahia ana ki roto i ngā mahi whakahaere o ngā pire tatū i ngā kerēme e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, kia kite atu i te mana motuhake o ngā hapū ki roto i ngā pire a taihoa ake nei. Tēnā pea kua tau a kaupapa ka tukuna atu ki ōku ake ki roto o Ngāpuhi, kāti.

E ōku rangatira, ko te take tuarua e hiahia ana au te kōrero i tēnei wā, anā, ko te āhuatanga ki ngā wāhi whenua ki roto i a Ngāti Porou ka whakamanahia ngā ingoa tūpuna ki runga i aua wāhi. He mea mīharo tēnā, nā runga i te mōhio āianei ka whakanuia e Aotearoa whānui te taenga mai a Kuki ki runga i te moutere o Aotearoa. Nō reira ko te pai i a tātou katoa e whakanui ana i te taenga mai o Kuki ki Aotearoa, ā, ka whakanuia anō e tātou katoa ngā ingoa Māori, ngā ingoa tūturu i kitea e Kuki i te wā i a ia. He mea nui tēnā. Kia kaua tātou katoa e pōhēhē ka tae mai a Kuki ā he ingoa Pākehā i tōna taenga mai. Kāhore. He mea nui tērā nā runga i te mōhio āianei tātou ka whakanuia te taenga mai o Kuki, ka whakamaumahara i tana taenga mai, nō reira he mea mīharo te kite atu ki roto i te Tai Rāwhiti, ana, ki roto o Ngāti Porou ka whakamanahia e te Kāwanatanga me tēnei Whare ngā ingoa tupuna ki runga i ngā wāhi whenua ki roto i a rātou.

Ko te mea tuatoru, e te Māngai o te Whare, ko te āhuatanga o tēnei pire ki te whakarite i te mahere ka taea e ngā hapū me Ngāti Porou whānui ki te āta kōrero ki te kāwanatanga ka tahi, ki te kaunihera ā-rohe ka rua. He mea pai tēnā. He mea pai tēnā kia kite atu i taua mahere ka whakaritea mai ki roto i te pire kia kaua tētahi e haukoti i te mahere, kia kaua tētahi e huri tuarā ki te whakaritenga ki roto i tēnei pire. Mehemea ka kite tātou ki roto i tēnei pire ka mōhio tātou katoa āe, ki runga i ngā ūpoko o ngā rōpū e rua, arā, ko Ngāti Porou, arā, ko te Kāwanatanga, ko te kaunihera hoki te tikanga kia noho ngātahi, kia kōrero ngātahi mō ngā take e pā ana ki te takutai moana, he mea mīharo te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire, ehara i te mea hou, engari ka kī atu ahau he mea mīharo nā runga i taku take tuatahi, anā, ka taea e ngā hapū te wahaina i wā rātou ake whakaaro, kōrero mō wā rātou ake wāhi whenua ki roto o Ngāti Porou, he mea pai tēnā ki a au nei.

E te Māngai o te Whare; ko tētahi atu o ngā kaupapa nui i kite au ki roto i te pire nei, i whakaritea nei te pire i te mahere kia noho ngātahi ai a Ngāti Porou me ōna hapū me te kāwanatanga me ngā kaunihera ā-rohe, ko tētahi o ngā mea pai i kite atu ahau i roto i te pire nei, anā, ko te taha ki te mātauranga. Ko ngā pou o te mātauranga he mea nui tēnā ki a au tā te mea pai te kite atu ki roto i te pire nei, engari ki te kore a Ngāti Porou me ōna hapū katoa e whakamārama atu ana ki te tini me te mano ki roto i wā rātou ake rohe mō te āhuatanga o wā rātou mana motuhake, wā rātou wāhi tapu, wā rātou tikanga, wā rātou ingoa tūpuna ki roto i a rātou, e, ka riro mā te iwi Māori ngā take katoa e hāpai ki roto i ngā tau e tū nei. He mea mīharo te kite atu ko tētahi o ngā whāinga kei roto ko te pou o te mātauranga. Te pou o te mātauranga, he mea nui tērā. Kia kaua te kāwanatanga me te iwi o Ngāti Porou me ōna hapū katoa e pōhēhē ana kei a rātou katoa anake te āpōpōtanga mō ngā mahi i whakaritea nei e te pire. Kāhore. Me whakamōhio atu ki te tini me te mano ngā āhuatanga me ngā mahi katoa kei mua i te aroaro o Ngāti Porou me ōna hapū katoa, ā, me Aotearoa whānui.

Hei mea whakakapi ake e te Māngai o te Whare, tā te mea i kī mai te Hōnore a Christopher Finlayson i kī mai ia ki roto i te pire tawhito o te Takutai Moana ka kī nei ka aukatingia te wāhanga ki te hunga ka whai tono ki taua ture, ki raro i te mana o taua ture, ka whakaritea mai i tētahi ture hou, arā, ko te Marine and Coastal Act tērā. E hiahia ana au kia kite atu i te tini o ngā iwi ka tono mai ki raro i te ture hou, ā, me kaua e takaroa te mahi o tēnei Whare, ka taea e ngā iwi ki roto i ngā tau e tū nei te mutu wawe i wā rātou kerēme mō te take nei.

Ka nui tēnei māku. Kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will stay in Māori.

We launch in to the world of light, the world of enlightenment, behold there is life!

Firstly, I endorse the words of welcome to you my distinguished leaders—Mount Hikurangi, welcome, welcome to this House, which belongs to us all.

Secondly, it is fitting that I follow in the footsteps of the revered Api Mahuika, who meandered the Taumārere River doing work for the church. I echo the prayerful supplications to the Creator to watch over us all during the deliberations of this session; as well, that He watch over the passage of this bill. Ministers of this House have spoken at length about this bill. Its beginnings can be traced years back, indeed more than 10 years. It is now before the House, and I once again implore the Creator to watch over this bill and all who contributed to it up to this point.

I also pay my respects to our dearly departed. The House has recognised Apirana Mahuika’s role in these endeavours. I therefore add my venerations to his memory and to the memory of another leader in this House in his time: Parekura Horomia.

They all prepared the way for this, that Ngāti Porou and indeed this House, are able to duly consider important matters of the day, and so we fondly remember and farewell them. Ladies and gentlemen let me bring this speech back to us. Greetings to you all.

I support what Minister Andrew Little said to the House earlier today. There are many aspects to this bill. I wish to refer to some of them in my speech today, namely the references to hapū, and Māori names that have been resurrected; no, not resurrected, names in Ngāti Porou territory which will be given statutory recognition; thirdly, the road that is ahead for the hapū of Ngāti Porou to work collaboratively with the Crown in matters foreshore and seabed within Ngāti Porou boundaries.

So let me go back to my first subject, and that is the matter of hapū within Ngāti Porou. I am very pleased to read in this bill the functions sitting with hapū. Even though some have been left behind, the majority have been kept as Ngāti Porou progresses this matter. For a long time now, hapū around the country have longed for the Government to accept their independence. We can all see in this bill that while Ngāti Porou at large is the vehicle being used to advance this matter, each hapū can exercise its own independent authority over their boundaries, over their foreshore, over their land. That is wonderful. I am aware that this bill will not be accomplished via the Treaty of Waitangi claims process, but by instead via the new bill relating to the foreshore and seabed. However, what I would like to see in claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, is that future bills will ensure that hapū do retain their independence. Who knows—when this comes to fruition perhaps I should make it available to my Ngāpuhi people.

Ladies and gentlemen, the second matter I wish to bring to your attention today is that which pertains to places within Ngāti Porou, the ancestral names of which will be recognised. I am pleased about that, particularly since New Zealand is shortly to celebrate the arrival of Captain Cook to these shores. It is good for us all, that while we are celebrating the arrival of Captain Cook to New Zealand, we are also celebrating the original place names that were used when he got here. This is important. Let us not tell ourselves that on arrival Captain Cook found that places had English names. No. It is therefore important, knowing that commemoration celebrations for Captain Cook are about to take place, that on the East Coast, within Ngāti Porou, ancestral place names will receive statutory recognition by the Government, by this House.

The third matter which I wish to raise is the proposal within this bill to accept that hapū as well as Ngāti Porou at large are able to have discussions with the Government in the first instance, and with local councils in the second. This is a good thing. This is good because this bill means that such provisions cannot be avoided or ignored. When we look at this bill, we can certainly see that the responsibility lies with both sides—that is, with Ngāti Porou and with the Government both national and local, to collaborate, to have genuine dialogue concerning the foreshore and seabed. It is wonderful to see this in the bill; while it is not new, what makes it commendable relates to my first point, and that is that hapū are able to articulate their own land issues within Ngāti Porou, and that, in my view, is good.

I believe that one of the important aspects of this bill, which requires Ngāti Porou and its hapū, along with the national and local government bodies to collaborate, one of its important features, relates to education. The education provisions are important in my opinion because while it is good to see these things in this bill, if all Ngāti Porou hapū do not educate the masses within their boundaries about those things which give them their special identity and independence such as their sacred sites, their customs, their ancestral names, it will be left to Māori generally to exercise that responsibility in the future. Therefore, it is very pleasing to see that one of the objectives herein relates to education. It is important. Let us not delude ourselves that only the Government, Ngāti Porou and its hapū have a future stake in the provisions of this bill. Not at all. The matters raised here before Ngāti Porou, its hapū and wider New Zealand ought to be shared with the masses.

Finally, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, in his contention that application for ownership rights to the foreshore and seabed were extinguished in the former Foreshore and Seabed Act, established a new law, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. I would like to see tribes make application under that new Act, and for this House to deal promptly with such applications, so that tribes in coming years can have their claims swiftly dealt with.

Enough from me. Greetings to all.]

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi o Ngāti Porou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It’s an absolute pleasure for me to stand and speak in the House. As Deputy Speaker it doesn’t happen very often, because you’re the person of Parliament and you cannot preside over a bill that you are involved in. So it’s only on very special occasions that I get the opportunity to speak, and today is one of those very special occasions.

When Māui first hauled up the North Island from the oceans, the first to emerge was the point of Mt Hikurangi, the sacred icon for Ngāti Porou. It represents for them their independence, and it represents for them their unity, and, of course, Māui is fundamental to Ngāti Porou’s history because he binds them to the beginning of human existence and to their rohe. And I want to acknowledge, today, the significance of that history.

I want start by paying tribute to a great Ngāti Porou leader and a great parliamentarian, Sir Apirana Ngata, whose words continue to echo around these halls so many years later. I also want to pay tribute to Apirana Mahuika—Uncle Api as we all knew him. He was another great leader for New Zealand, but more particularly for Ngāti Porou and for Tai Rāwhiti as a whole, and it was an absolute privilege to know him. He began the journey that we are legitimising here today.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomira who faced some pretty difficult times from his own people, but at all times showed leadership and a desire for the very best for Ngāti Porou to have their rights acknowledged. Can I acknowledge Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou chairman Selwyn Parata and the other senior Ngāti Porou leaders that have travelled here today.

The homeland of Ngāti Porou is the most easterly region of the North Island, and its boundaries are set in Te Runanga o Ngāti Porou Act 1987. It’s mountainous, with the Raukūmara Range; it’s hilly, and those hills are covered with forestry and with mānuka producing some of the best honey in the country—probably in the world, Ngāti Porou would claim; and there is sheep and beef farming, and, of course, Whangarā B5 wins prizes year after year after year for high-quality farming. It has a magnificent coastline that is blessed with abundant kai, well looked after by Ngāti Porou, but its greatest asset, of course, is, in Sir Apirana Ngata’s words, “He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” I’d also add on to that probably Ngāti Porou women, who are known to be independent, forthright, highly effective leaders—and, of course, here in the National Party we’ve experienced one of those for quite some time, and she’s greatly missed.

We’re here today, at last, to legislate recognition of Ngāti Porou’s customary title and rights over the foreshore and seabed along the coastland of their rohe. It’s been a long journey to get here, and that’s been outlined by both Minister Little and my colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson. The National-led Government inherited the foreshore and seabed legislation that caused such dissension among both Māori and Pākehā, and it is a tribute to many on the Labour benches who have acknowledged that they got that wrong.

But Uncle Api had negotiated a deal with the Labour Government because of his desire to have that long history recognised and those rights bestowed upon Ngāti Porou. Then he courageously—let’s not overlook the courage it took and the generosity of spirit—set that to one side and agreed to wait whilst the incoming National Government replaced that piece of legislation with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, which would then allow the bill we are debating here today. I’m not going to go through all the details of that, because that’s long been talked about and negotiated, and there’ll be many, many more hours negotiating those—I have no doubt. But it does confer all the rights that deserve to go with customary title, and it devolves the responsibilities of allowing the public access to parts of that coastline.

Now, we all know that there will be all sorts of fears and assumptions made about the worst things that can happen, and I’ve already got people coming into my office saying, “We won’t be allowed to swim and we won’t be allowed to fish.”, and all these things. We know we’re going to have that, and we know that there is going to be some dissension even with Ngāti Porou, but we will persevere. We will get through. Gisborne people know and respect Ngāti Porou, and we will sensibly reject outside interference. The history supports that confidence. The Crown and Ngāti Porou over the years have had a pretty positive relationship, and I know that that will continue.

Even if you look at recent history, in 2015 the Gisborne District Council signed an agreement with Ngāti Porou—the joint management agreement over the Waiapū catchment. The Waiapū River is of not quite but almost as great a significance to Ngāti Porou as Hikurangi. That agreement gave Ngāti Porou, along with the Gisborne District Council, the ability to jointly perform or exercise any of the local authority’s powers, functions, or duties—so that sharing of decision making over a natural resource in order to get better outcomes for all our people and for the environment. Again, into my office, I have people saying, “This was terrible.” and “How could this happen?” Well, actually, the sky hasn’t fallen. The rivers are still running. The people are still there. The mountains are still there. Life goes on, but it goes on in a better way.

And then, just last month, Ngāti Porou and Air New Zealand signed an agreement—a partnership agreement to generate economic growth for the whole of Tai Rāwhiti, not just for Ngāti Porou. I note the people that have come down today—I hope you wrote into the bottom of that “more air flights between Gisborne and Wellington”. It would be really, really helpful. But that is the status and the trust and the confidence of the Crown, of Government, with Ngāti Porou. So I want to congratulate all those who have been responsible for getting this new mandate and the legislation to this House.

Someone said there’s a time and place for everything; well, this is now the time. This is now the time to recognise, as I said at the outset, that Ngāti Porou, through Māui, are bound to this rohe. They have lived and loved, they have toiled and rested, they’ve fished and hunted along those shores, uninterrupted—well, you know, actually, some of us have gone there intermittently because we also love that coastline and want to go and visit it from time to time. But Ngāti Porou have lived there, have established themselves in that part of the world, and it is time to recognise that in law, with all the rights and all the responsibilities that go with that.

So I’m delighted to support this first reading of Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2), and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Hei tīmata māku, hei kōrerotanga māku i te tuatahi, me reo Māori.

Hikurangi maunga, Waiapū awa, Ngāti Porou tāngata, tēnā anō koutou katoa i hoki mai ki roto i te Whare nei, i whakakōrerotia ai e tō mātou hoa, e tā koutou tamaiti, tō koutou rangatira a Parekura - nōnā e matomato ana.

Tēnā tātou hoki i te āhuatanga o te kaumatua, tana ingoa e whakahuatia nuitia ana i waenga tonu i ngā kaitōrangapū me koutou ngā karere, koutou ngā kanohi mai i a Ngāti Porou, arā, ko Apirana Mahuika, me te tinitini atu i tautoko i a ia ahakoa, ko Te Kapunga tētahi. Nā reira tēnā anō koutou katoa.

[By way of introduction, I shall begin my speech in Māori.

Mount Hikurangi, the Waiapū River, and the people of Ngāti Porou, I bid you warm greetings, and welcome you back to this House where speeches were made by our colleague, your son, your leader—Parekura—who is no longer with us.

We must also pay tribute to that distinguished elder whose name has been cited often among politicians, and you the press, as well as by Ngāti Porou representatives; we are talking about Apirana Mahuika and his many supporters, of whom Te Kapunga was one. Greetings to you all.]

I have acknowledged the manuhiri to Wellington—but not strangers to this Parliament, because this is the people’s House. Indeed, the most formidable of all our Māori parliamentarians, one of the longest-serving parliamentarians in our history, the great Sir Apirana Ngata and, more recently, Parekura Horomia, are the proud sons of Ngāti Porou. Their deeds, their words, their stories, and their contributions are still acknowledged as we—in particular, the Māori members of the House—speak about our parliamentary Māori political heritage.

I have acknowledged, along with the other speakers, Apirana Mahuika, who, for a period of time, was an Anglican priest in Ngāpuhi. I should tell the story which is related to the heritage which this bill is designed to uphold: the heritage of the Ngāti Porou people.

The Ngāti Porou people, in the 1830s, sent—to my historical memory—two chiefs, led by Te Rangi Whakatamatama and, I think, Te Rukuata to the Ngāpuhi people and they sought out some of their warriors that had gone north after the Musket Wars. One of those warriors was Taumatakura, and he, along with Williams, was taken back down, along with these chiefs, to the Waiapū awa and to the coast of Ngāti Porou, and was reunited with his people. He followed the ancestral footsteps of his tapairu whaea, of his aunt Rangipaia, who during the Musket Wars had disappeared north with Kelvin Davis’s tupuna Pōmare. Not satisfied with his indigenous name, Pōmare from Ngāpuhi, he stole the name of the Tahitian king. That is the origin of the name Pōmare.

Then Pōmare, seeing the error of his ways, sought to reunite on the coast of Ngāti Porou, on the takutai moana. After the battles of Whakawhitirā and other such places, the woman Rangipaia and he dispatched a famous Ngāpuhi warrior called Te Taotaoriri. That kaumātua went, musket on his back, modest loincloth, into the Ngāti Porou, and his life was saved by their chief, Uenuku, who, after having listened to his kōrero, ended up enabling Te Taotaoriri to make the peace between my tūpunas and that part of Ngāti Porou. So when these people talk about their ancestral heritage and the fact that they’ve been able to retain the ownership of their land, partly through that great parliamentarian Sir Apirana Ngata but also choices they made themselves, theirs is a genuinely deep, rich, indigenous history.

So we do support this bill going to the select committee, and we most certainly look forward to the submissions from the select committee process, but it’s important that we offer some testimony as to the values, the affection, and the heritage that lies behind the efforts to bring this bill to its current point.

Now, we’ve said in Māori that a host of people have passed on. There was a great leader of the East Coast, Tamahau Mahupuku. Tamahau Mahupuku was more Kahungunu than Ngāti Porou, but his point was: kua rūpeke atu rātou ki te pō, engari ko te whakatutukitanga ka pūrero tonu, ka pūrero tonu.

[they may have departed this world, but their aspirations just keep on being to the forefront.] which means, “Although the men and women we refer to have passed on, the fulfilment of their dreams and aspirations bubbles up with each generation.” I think that’s a fitting description for the House to acknowledge, in both our languages, about each generation making a contribution to, really, the nation’s narrative as to how we strike a balance that respects the indigeneity, the history, and the ancestry but also deals with the reality of modern New Zealand society. So we support this bill.

I note that parts of the takutai moana rohe are not covered by this bill. In an earlier and richer life, I was the chairman of the Māori Fisheries Commission. During my period of time there, I suffered verbal taunts from famous Ngāti Porou leaders Api Mahuika and Koro Dewes. They were both scholars in their own right, but I recall them saying to the Māori Fisheries Commission that the strength of the East Coast—the Tai Rāwhiti, the Ngāti Porou—lay in us treating it as one big block. That’s one of the proudest things in my political life as a politician outside of politics—parliamentary politics—the leadership displayed by the tribe at that time has continued on with this bill.

I happen to think that the high tide of discontent has passed. I happen to think that Māori and Pākehā have bigger challenges to face than scratching at each at each other, when one considers the changing nature of our demography and the pressures upon our population with its traditional binary narrative of a replica of Queen Victoria and the Māori rangatira. This bill, amongst other things, entrenches in law a genuinely held belief about rights, identity, and place. Those particular qualities, key to our identity, are going to grow as we face growing levels of immigration, with people struggling to find a better place for their lives, but when they come here they must accept that our nation was founded on a binary narrative through the pioneer spirit and the contributions of spirituality, land, resource, and sacrifice by the Māori tribes. Around this House, these laurels are a fitting reminder that those are the foundation values of New Zealand. So for the people who feared the development of a piece of legislation affirming the connections of the Ngāti Porou, their fears, as we go forward, will not be found, in my view, to be grounded in genuine trepidation. It’s a passing phase, but for those of us who are the leaders of Māoridom and the leaders of New Zealand in this House, we must always uphold the foundation values that give us our essential identity.

I passed through Ngāti Porou recently. I think I might have made a vague promise to build them a honey factory. I can assure you, until they unite as one honey group, hani to hani, they’ll be in a long list of people waiting. But I had a cup of tea at Ūawa—Tolaga Bay—and on behalf of all of you parliamentarians I made a small courtesy aroha visit to the Kohimārama urupā, where our friend Parekura Horomia was interred. I’m also conscious that my colleague Mr Ron Mark spent Anzac Day in that Ngāti Porou rohe. Of course, there is also a little bit of debate about genealogy as to how far Ngāti Porou is Ngāti Porou, and all the rest of it. Being a diplomatic Ngāpuhi, that’s someone else’s problem, but it was a pleasure to go to Tolaga Bay and I’m sure it meant a lot for those people to acknowledge and receive Mr Ron Mark on that most important day of our calendar, Anzac Day. Kia ora tātou.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, sir. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Can I just say thank you to the previous speaker. There are occasions when listening to him is helpful and I certainly appreciated his comments and insights into the challenges that we face as a nation. Perhaps in time he will speak fondly of the slings and arrows that come from the National Party, as he did so admirably say regarding Ngāti Porou’s leadership.

Here we are in a momentous point in time as we look at the first reading of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). I’m very happy to stand in support of this, from the National Party’s benches, and to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for the outstanding work he has led, over close to near a decade. I acknowledge also the Hon Andrew Little and the work he has continued on. Indeed these pieces of legislation are more than just words on paper. They are history, they are the story, they are the mana of the people of Ngāti Porou, and, as the Hon Shane Jones mentioned, this is very important in terms of going forward for the success of people in Aotearoa New Zealand.

We need to look at the future together and with unified thinking towards the strong challenges that face us. As this bill progresses through Parliament and through the select committee process, I am just acknowledging my colleague the Hon Anne Tolley. What she says is so important: that New Zealanders do not see this as something which they react against but that they support, because they are supporting the tangata whenua, the people who this bill speaks of in terms of their connection to their rohe and how important that is for their mana and their future and their sense of well-being and progress.

There is a tremendous amount of detail in this bill, but can I say from the far shores of Taranaki that we wish you every success in this, and we wish the speedy progress of this bill. It has been some time, and we indeed hope that we can be here to celebrate on the third and final reading of this and see the great celebration that you look for in terms of the sense of mana, as I said, and well-being of your people. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tū ana tēnei uri, tēnei kōiwi o te Tai Rāwhiti, o te maunga Whetūmatarau, o te maunga Hikurangi tonu, o te awa Waiapū, o ngā marae o Hinerupe, o ngā hapū o Hinerupe, te whānau a Hinerupe, te whānau a Tāpuhi hoki, nō reira, mihi hōnore ki a koutou ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Porou, o te Tai Rāwhiti. Nau mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Before you stands this descendant, these bones of the East Coast, of Mount Whetūmatarau, indeed of Mount Hikurangi, of the Waiapū River, of Hinerupe Marae, of Hinerupe, subtribes, of the Hinerupe and Tāpuhi wider kinship groups, and I am honoured to greet you, my relatives from Ngāti Porou, from the East Coast. Welcome to you all, greetings to all who are here.]

I have a mum who is my Ngāti Porou side who lives in Ruatōria and who has lived there for many years—a couple of decades at least. Like many Ngāti Porou, she was born and raised in Wellington, but she has had the privilege of moving back to the coast to our tūrangawaewae, and so as an urban Māori I have often sent my young children back to my mother when I’ve had some busy work or some busy projects. I’ve sent them down there to give me a hand so I can do what I need to do as a mama, and they’ve been very young when they’ve been down there and spent lots of time—all of my children have spent lots of time living there. I’ve been able to spend some time living there.

One of the stories I remember today goes to the core of what this legislation, Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2), is trying to do in protecting the customary rights of Ngāti Porou and ngā hapū over their moana—essentially, upholding mana moana for ngā rohe o Ngāti Porou and ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. When I’d often send my young children down there, they’d be there for months, actually. They’d become very accustomed for that time to the way of life in Ngāti Porou, in Ruatōria, and Tararua, Hicks Bay. Then I’d go to ask them something in Auckland, back in their urban setting environment, rushing out the door like we do when we are urban dwelling with young children and trying to get breakfast down them.

I remember they came back from being months in Ruatōria and I sat them down at the breakfast table, opened the cupboards with all of the flash cereals that we have—all of those flash sugar cereals that are there, that are convenience foods that are in our kai cupboards. I said, “Which one of these do you want for breakfast?” They both looked at me—they were probably three and four, and they both looked at me blank in the face and asked for crayfish. And they were serious, because that’s what they had been having for breakfast every morning in Ruatōria and that’s what they expected from the kai cupboard in Auckland, in Manurewa.

That goes to the heart of a lot of what this legislation is wanting to uphold—the customary and protection rights of ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou over their moana, and it is the connection, literally for our mokopuna to know who they are by how that kai kāpata has fed them and how that doesn’t just feed their tinana but it feeds their wairua and it feeds their whakapapa connection to who they are. That was the first story that came to mind as I was trying to get to the core of what this bill is actually about.

I absolutely want to honour Papa Api Mahuika for his vision when he felt that things were going to go awry with the foreshore legislation, and I will again say that part of the reason why I’m with the Green Party is because we have always held strong to our political position of upholding customary rights for hapū and kaitiaki rights for hapū. So that’s why we opposed that legislation and Papa Api felt that it was going to need some work to actually protect what was looking threatened—the ability to maintain those kaitiaki responsibilities over moana. So he did some visionary work. He led some visionary work around the hapū of Ngāti Porou to get this legislation put into place. And then, of course, the marine and coastal area legislation came in and my understanding is that that is the legislation for other iwi to have similar interests upheld, and so Papa Api is always first to the line—that’s so him.

I also absolutely have to acknowledge Papa Parekura as well, simply also because it is a lot to do with him that I stand here at as a servant in this House for our people. So I mihi to our tūpuna of Ngāti Porou and our whānau of Ngāti Porou, and very proudly, as Ngāti Porou.

I did want to mention that it appears that 47 of the 49 hapū have signed the amendments to the Ngāti Porou foreshore and seabed deed of agreement from 2008. I want to pick up where other members have mentioned those hapū who may be seeking other pathways. I wish them the best also in maintaining their kaitiaki and customary rights over their moana. I think that includes Te Whānau a Te Ao and Te Whānau a Rua. And on that, I just went into schedule 2 of the actual bill. It was quite neat going in to find my particular hapū. The schedule looks at the management arrangements for particular area rohe of Ngāti Porou, and so in Part 1 Te Whānau a Hinerupe, which is one of my hapū, are a part of the area of Pōtikirua to Whangaokeno in the bill. Then Te Whānau a Tapuhi, one of my other hapū, are in the details of management arrangement for the area, for the rohe of Whangaokeno to Onepoto.

So I look forward to receiving this legislation in the Māori Affairs Committee, where I’m deputy chair, and hearing the hapū and the rohe and the moana rohe that I know of intimately and am connected to intimately. I think it’s important to uphold the vision of this good work as well, because it attempts to entrench and protect the mana moana a little bit better than what it was looking like before Ngāti Porou were able to negotiate this deed. It establishes customary title and future customary title rights to exercise those permission rights over those rohe, and so I was pleased to see that those resource consents will require consent of the hapū before the council even has jurisdiction to consider them, which I think is right. The work of upholding those kaitiaki rights has never stopped and has always continued, and it will continue. But this legislation assists with some funding to help set up the management, and also has further legal rights to further entrench those kaitiaki and customary rights.

So, again, I think it is right to acknowledge the whanaunga o Matanuku Mahuika for driving this legislation on behalf of those hapū. It’s his story of addressing some of the fears that we all know came through initially—including from the original foreshore legislation background to this—about iwi and hapū going to block off beaches and access. I pick up the example that Matanuku talked about, which is where, yes, those are discretionary powers—for example, rāhui to protect the sustainability of kai moana stocks, and with Mount Hikurangi, Ngāti Porou has the ability to close the mountain for up to 50 days, but at the most, it might be one or two days, and it is always for protecting that rohe, for protecting the maunga for the benefit of everybody. Those are the discussions and conversations that I look forward to all of us in the House leading, and using our profile and platforms to uphold the understanding that upholding mana moana for hapū and iwi all over Aotearoa is for the benefit of all of us.

So, as I close, there was another—oh, yeah. I’ll close with another story—30 seconds. Many, many, many years ago, my dad was asked to speak at one of the prize-givings at the Te Araroa school, and one of the reasons he loved speaking up the Coast was because of the koha. He would literally receive big chiller boxes of kai moana as his koha for speaking on the East Coast, and then he would bring it back to Auckland and skite about what he had for all of us. That’s what this bill is all about. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā tātou e huihui mai nei i tēnei ahiahi. E mihi ana ki a koutou ngā uri, ngā mana whenua, ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou kua tae mai nei i roto i ngā āhuatanga o tēnei whare, te Whare Mīere, te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Assistant Speaker, I offer greetings to all who are gathered here this afternoon. I acknowledge you the descendants, the inheritors of the land, indeed the tribes of Ngāti Porou who have descended upon this house, the Beehive, the House of Parliament. Greetings to one and all.]

Listening to those who have spoken in the House before me, I reference the Hon Andrew Little, where he spoke about this being the beginning of a new era.

May I just take us on a journey back some 14 years and four days ago, to 4 May 2004. That is a day that’s etched very vividly in my mind, when I joined some 15,000 other Māori and New Zealanders who gathered here and walked on to the grounds of Parliament in protest at proposed legislation by the Government of the day. I travelled from Whanganui with my husband and my pōtiki—my youngest—and we joined with the many others. That march was led at the time by Dr Pita Sharples, and many of us here in the House today were part of that.

I reflect on that, coming from Whanganui. I acknowledge you, Ngāti Porou, for we have been on a very enduring passage and journey with Te Awa Tupua, our Whanganui River settlement. Dame Tariana Turia, whanaunga of Ngāti Apa and also of Whanganui, has been part of that journey, but she’s also been part of your journey for the time and the years of service she was a member of Parliament and Minister, formerly, with the Labour Party. She crossed the floor in protest, and that was the precursor to the journey and the passage of those waters traversed here today.

This is the first stage. This is the first reading of the legislation that is yours, and I stand as a servant of our community. However, I stand as uri of Whanganui, I stand as the member of Parliament representing Whanganui, and I also stand and speak as a member privileged to serve on the Māori Affairs Committee.

Aroha mai, I apologise for not being present at the pōwhiri for you here today. I was in service on another select committee, and it was interesting, over the passage of time, how our relationships traversed these waters. One of the submitters to the select committee this morning was a former law professor and lecturer of mine, and she exposed my mind and my intellect to the importance of Māori customary rights and interests as my former Māori land law lecturer—Professor Jane Kelsey. As I look up at you, also I acknowledge those who have gone before those of you who are here today. I hark and reflect upon the time when I was a younger woman working in the Department of Māori Affairs here in Wellington, under the leadership of Dr Tāmati Reedy and, of course, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, who were very much mentors and shapers of my thinking and my passage and journey in life, and here I stand today, having the privilege of addressing the House and ngā uri o Ngāti Porou.

Now I turn to speak about the importance and significance of this bill, as you know, because you have carried and borne this. Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) is, I understand, the direct consequence of that that I spoke about in terms of a former Government’s policy which attempted to deny Māori customary rights. The progression of time now sees us where this bill proposed will seek to contribute to the legal expression, protection, and in recognition of the continued exercise of mana by ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou. It has never been in question. You have never questioned it, although there have been attempts in Governments of days gone by to remove that right. This bill, once passed into law, will seek to entrench and formalise that under legislation.

You know your history. You know your whakapapa. It’s not for me to go over that with you. But I stand here very privileged to acknowledge you and also I acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who addressed the House and also all of you first, as a senior colleague of mine who has been dedicated and committed, as a National Party MP and also former Minister, in the progression of Treaty settlements.

I also acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little. I did not know about, until the Hon Christopher Finlayson shared in the House, the courage and the fortitude that he took in his stance to stand against his Government at that time. I believed that Dame Tariana Turia was the only one, but I do acknowledge the Minister for that.

I look at time and it does pass quickly when we’re standing here speaking in the House, but it doesn’t when you’re waiting all those years to come here to witness and to hear what we have to say. But, more importantly, it is about this House listening to you. As a member who will be presiding with colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, we will be listening further in examining but also, having perused the bill, in supporting what has been arrived at.

I just will traverse very quickly. The history is known. It is on the record, and when we come to the second and the third readings of this bill, into law, there will be more detail about the roles, but the focus is forward and into the future. I hark upon the time and the experience working as a younger woman here. I always pondered why there was such a strong presence of Ngāti Porou through our public service and sector. I know, because you had the vision, you had the strength, you had the knowledge, you invested in your young people, many of whom are not so young but certainly experienced and have gathered on the wisdom of those who are here and have gone before.

I look in closing, in addressing the House, by commending this bill to the next stage of select committee and I say that the National-led Government, under which this bill was moved forward, has made great progress completing final and durable settlements of Treaty of Waitangi claims, and your bill is one of those. Your entrenched customary Māori rights will be enforced in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia ora. Just before I call the next member, I do want to commend the member for your speech, but I do need to remind you to address the chair—address the gallery. [Member stands] It’s fine; you can sit. I know that in further speeches that you will make better attempts to do so, but thank you very much. I call Kiritapu Allan. I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Kei Te Māngai, ka huri ahau ki te mihi atu ki ngā uri o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou i waenganui i tēnei whare, ā tāatou nei Whare o Pāremata; ā, kei a koutou e ōku nei rangatira, tino roa te ara o tēnei pire i waenganui i tēnei Whare, otirā, kei a koutou ā tātou nei pukumahi i tēnei ahiahi tino whakahirahira ki a koutou, otirā ki a mātou mai i tēnei taha, o tērā taha. Kei te mihi ki a koutou, ā, tēnā koutou.

[I turn to acknowledge the descendants of the Ngāti Porou tribes amongst this House, our House of Parliament; to you my leaders, this bill has had a long road through this House. However, you have our undivided attention on this very important afternoon for you and for us on both sides of the House. Greetings to you all.]

I’m the ninth speaker, so I’m only going to reiterate what everybody else has said already. I don’t want to bore you too much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m sure I won’t be bored.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’m sure you won’t be, Madam Assistant Speaker, because I’m going to make it entertaining. I do want to acknowledge the remarks of both the Minister of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, and his former counterpart, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. This bill has had a long journey. It has lived its life through three different Government administrations. There have been many people who have passed through the course of that period, most of whom have been acknowledged today, but it would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge the aspirations, the leadership, of the boy from Tikitiki and the esteemed rangatira Apirana Mahuika.

I cast back my memory to those times in 2004. I was a young fulla and had dreadlocks and was protesting outside too, I think, at that time. But I think of the leadership of those, too, of your iwi o Ngāti Porou in this House, the Hon Parekura Horomia, the trials and tribulations that he endured in this House as a consequence of the seabed and foreshore and the many decisions post facto. So I too want to acknowledge Parekura, an esteemed leader for many of us in this House but also for you o Ngāti Porou.

Earlier this afternoon, Herewini mentioned that the ōhāki, or the last aspirations, of Apirana were to see this bill enter into this House and pass through. And after 15 or so years, and many, many hui up and down that coast, many debates that have been had, it’s taken too long but this day has come.

I reflected on some of the comments just prior to the election from Apirana’s son and former colleague, Matanuku Mahuika, who led these negotiations. One of the things that he mentioned was “I hope that, in turn, this doesn’t become another political football post-election if the Government changes.” And I’m proud of the work of my colleagues on this side of the House. Ngāti Porou, for your dedication and, I guess, your ongoing endurance through the many changes that you have seen—I am glad that there has been little fuss in seeing this bill passed through under this changed administration.

I also, too, want to acknowledge that I’ve always admired the way that Ngāti Porou have been very instrumental in the way that I see you operate Wellington. In fact, I’m going to say it was about 10.30 pm on the evening of 23 September 2017 that I got my first phone call lobbying me for my very first time as what would be a new MP of this House—about this here bill. “Don’t you forget about this bill!” So your masterminds—I always sort of preach back to my iwi. I say, “If we want to ever learn how to work Wellington and get things done, let’s take a leaf out of Ngāti Porou’s books.”

There are many people that can be acknowledged, but I do want to just say that the most interesting thing for me in this bill—Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2)—[Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Sorry. Those that are on the ground of the hapū, who actually have to do the mahi: nō reira, ki a koutou, tēnā koutou.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call to support this very important bill, Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). Before I get into the content of this bill, I want to acknowledge everyone that has been involved in bringing this bill, in this form, before the House. I acknowledge the current Minister in charge, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little. I acknowledge the work done by the previous Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson. I also acknowledge members of Ngāti Porou. I notice that this iwi is our largest iwi. It has around 72,000 members. So that’s the kind of significance we have for this legislation.

Going back, we know that work on this bill started in the early 2000s, and that is when the previous Labour Government started working on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. I would say that that was controversial legislation, but that was the time when we started working on this bill. That’s why this bill has “No 2” inserted after its name, because there was a bill that came after the first deed of agreement was signed, which was based on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

Then the Government changed. Yes, the National Government came in, and we decided to repeal and replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Then, yes, there were no changes from Ngāti Porou, but, yes, of course things changed from the Crown. So that agreement, which was already signed—that agreement was signed in 2008 and that was signed here in Parliament. That was signed between the Crown and about 50 hapū representatives. So that was already done, but because the basis that it was signed on, the Foreshore and Seabed Act, got repealed and replaced, we had to update the deed of agreement.

From that time, since 2011, that work started. I can imagine that a huge amount of work has gone into this legislation to come here before the House. The bill was drafted last year in 2017, and the iwi has done a lot of hard work. They have not only negotiated, agreed everything, and then signed the deed which was signed in 2017, but done several huis, and this was actually ratified last year. But there are a few components in the agreement which cannot be implemented without having legislation, because there are several components which interlink or overlap with other Acts—for example, the Fisheries Act, Conservation Act, Resource Management Act. So it’s important that we have this legislation before the House. As everything in this legislation has been already negotiated and agreed upon, I fully agree with some members—those who said before that there is no reason for any more delays to happen for this bill to go through the House. So this side of the House is fully supportive of this bill.

It’s important to note that this bill actually provides that Part 3 and Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 are no longer applied, because they are to be replaced with specific recognition of customary interests. There are eight main areas in this bill—I won’t go through all those, but, just to give some examples, one is about customary fishing practice. It is important that that mechanism is extended to allow for a proposal of by-laws to reduce or completely stop fishing for sustainable use or for cultural reasons where it is in relation to customary marine title areas. Also, this bill extends the conservation process mechanisms. This will allow the iwi to have the right to give, or the right to refuse to give, consent to proposals that are related to the customary marine title areas.

There are, as I said, eight main areas in this bill that are going to be addressed. So, as I said before, everything has been already agreed upon. This legislation is important for us to be able to implement what has been agreed upon. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi, e tika me mihi ki ngā whanaunga tae mai nei i tēnei wā. Ka mihi ki a koutou i tae mai nei. Selwyn, ngā rangatira whakarangatira mātou i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. E tika ana ki te hoki taku mahara ki tō tātou rangatira, Uncle Api Mahuika; nānā anō rā i parau te huarahi hei whāinga mā tēnei reanga. Ko ia tētahi e tū toa ana, e tū hei rangatira mā tātou me ana mahi maha nei i kawea mai. Ahakoa te uaua, ahakoa te taumaha, ko Uncle Api tētahi i hiki i te nui o ngā mahi ki runga i ana pakihiwi. Nō reira Uncle, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Firstly, let us welcome our relatives who have arrived here today. Greetings to you all. Selwyn, and the leaders who honour us with their presence today, I salute you. We must take the time to remember our great chief, Uncle Api Mahuika; it was he who forged the path and this generation continues that work. He was one of the staunch ones who took the lead and assumed responsibility on our behalf in sundry areas. Despite the trials and tribulations, Uncle Api was one of those who shouldered those burdens. Therefore Uncle, rest now, rest in peace.]

I stand today as a son of Ngāti Porou—a son of Ngāti Porou, which is something very special to many of us who were brought up in urban settings. One of the saddest times for me was when our chairman and great rangatira Uncle Api Mahuika died, and, sadly, I was flying over to Europe when uncle died. He was a great influence, in terms of Ngāti Porou—in Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Porou in the cities. He was a man who always reminded us of our Ngāti Poroutanga, particularly myself and John Tamihere, who used to irritate him somewhat, through the years. So it’s good today to see the cuz there, the whanaunga with the haukāinga up there in the gallery, mixing with them, because we have been—well, not at each other’s throats, but we had talked about iwi rights as opposed to urban rights many times with our Uncle Api Mahuika.

We even took him to court, actually. And we didn’t go too well in that respect, either, because we were trying to determine rights in terms of urban Māori as opposed to iwi, but our uncle stood tall and nothing was ever personal from him. He had so much influence, so it’s wonderful—I know we’re not meant to be referring to the gallery, but it’s wonderful—to see our chair up there, my whanaunga Selwyn Parata and the relations come here, because it reminds me so much of Ngāti Porou, when I was brought up. Kiritapu Allan was talking about it earlier.

I have to say that in Wellington particularly, just for the Opposition, when I was young, Ngāti Porou ruled. Anything and everything was run by a Ngāti. If you were listening to my father Bob Jackson, only Ngāti Porou could speak Māori properly. There were only two types of Māori: those who were Ngāti Porou and those who wanted to be. Humility was not one of our strong characteristics at the time. But that’s what pervaded in those days.

I remember going to Ruatōria with John Tamihere, and talking to the locals about our upbringing, because when we were into these property rights debates, we talked about us being as proud as Ngāti Porou, as the Selwyn Paratas, and others who were brought up on the coast. Though we were never brought up under the umbrella of Hikurangi, we always said Hikurangi followed us wherever we went. If you were brought up in Porirua or you were brought up down here in Wellington, you would have thought you were in Ruatōria because everyone was a Ngāti. Uncle Api always said the best Māori language speakers were only Ngāti Porou. I recall him saying vividly one night that the best Māori language speaker—and can I say Kīngi Īhaka and Shane Jones were there—was Koro Dewes, and Kīngi Īhaka and Shane Jones said, “What about Ngāpuhi?” Uncle Api said, “No, the second-best speaker is me, and you don’t feature.”

So these are the stories that I was brought up on, you know—wonderful stories, and it’s wonderful to talk about this today. It’s almost appropriate that Ngāti Porou is the first tribe—and I mihi to the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson over there for his work—to exercise rangatiratanga. Uncle Api would say, “Who else should be exercising rangatiratanga first?” But Ngāti Porou is doing that.

I assure everyone in the House, and people who are listening, that everybody’s going to be safe on the East Coast. Our people will manage the situation just fine, which was a worry just a few years ago—a worry that led us to the infamous foreshore and seabed bill and the nonsense that went on at the time. I won’t go down the track about who turned it into law and all that sort of thing, but I will say that one person stuck with Labour and the insults that were coming their way. I shouldn’t say that—I shouldn’t say that; there was more than one. But there was certainly one person who stood up and said, “We’re going to stay with the kaupapa here. We’re going to change things.”, and that was Parekura Horomia. He fronted at the time. He fronted protesters at the time, and he was at the forefront in terms of what we are talking about today.

So I want to remember that whanaunga—remember that whanaunga for the wonderful work he did for the people of Ngāti Porou, for the wonderful work he did for the Labour Party. He held the Māori caucus strong together, when they were getting booted—I was going to say “deservedly”, but I’m part of the team now, aren’t I, so I can’t say that. Anyway—no, no, they deserved nothing, right. No, no—Pare, well, we had a number of debates at the time, in 2004 and 2005, and Parekura stood strong. He set up things well for the member Meka Whaitiri who followed in his footsteps, and the dream, the moemoeā, that I have to say a lot of Pākehā people don’t get, which is that we can manage our own. We can look after the beaches. We can look after the rohe. We don’t need a council to look after us. We are mature, experienced people.

We have wonderful people on the coast, like Selwyn Parata and the board and Whaimutu Dewes. All the different whanaunga are well versed in management, in governance, so New Zealand and the East Coast do not have to worry about Ngāti Porou looking after the governance, the customary rights, the tino rangatiratanga of that area. That fear that was promoted, sadly, by irresponsible politicians in the early 2000s, must no longer come to the fore—must no longer come to the fore.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: You guys botched it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: And we’re all on the same wavelength. We’re all on the same wavelength here. That promotion that was—and I will say by both sides, Mr Finlayson, by both sides; there’s no argument there.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Correct.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There is no argument there. We are more mature politicians now. These are the types of kaupapa where we come together, where we say: Kua tae ki te wā.

[We have come to the time.]

We’ve come to that time where we can see Māori leading the way, in terms of managing and governing different rohe. I see this as only the start—only the start—of something that is very, very exciting. Who would have thought, when we were going through that whole infamous foreshore and seabed debacle, that we would end up where we are today. It’s a tribute to our whanaunga, who are here today; to Uncle Api Mahuika, who was the chief negotiator; and to some of the members of the Māori Party, National Party, and now Labour Party that we have got this bill, which will, I’m sure, travel through with no problem through our committee process.

So it’s a privilege to stand, as I said, as a son of Ngāti Porou, a tribe that, as Kiritapu Allan said—you can’t shut them up, sometimes, eh, Kiritapu, in Wellington—led all the way with all our different rangatira. It had the top—we always say—Māori politicians like yourself, Kiritapu Allan, and Peeni Henare has got the whakapapa links, and Marama Davidson over there. I hope she talks more about her Ngāti Porou side than her Ngāpuhi side.

Marama Davidson: I did, au.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. You know, when you come into this House there’s a number of us here—and, of course, Meka Whaitiri, our member who’ll be wrapping up our kōrero today. It’s an honour to talk on this bill. Again, I mihi to the whanaunga who are here today. Tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā nō tātou katoa.

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ko au.

E koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā o ngā hapū me ngā whānau o Ngāti Porou, tēnā koutou. Nau mai haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira.

Ko wai au? Kei te mokopuna o te awa, kei te mokopuna au o te awa o Waiapū, te maunga o Hikurangi, te whare o Awatere me Hinerupe, me te tangata Porourangi. Ko Rangihuna me Apanui Konea ōku whānau tupuna. Ko Paikea Apanui, ko Paikea Ariki Apanui tōku pāpā, ko Joanne Kōwhai Apanui Hayes tōku ingoa.

[Just as the muttonbird calls and the parrot chatters, so too do I wish to be heard.

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished leaders of the various subtribes and families of Ngāti Porou, greetings to you all. I bid you a warm welcome to an important day.

Who am I? A grandchild of the river, I am a descendant of the Waiapū River, of Hikurangi mountain, of the house of Awatere and of Hinerupe, and of Porourangi. Rangihuna and Apanui Konea are my grandparents. Paikea Ariki Apanui is my father and my name is Joanne Kōwhai Apanui Hayes.]

I too want to acknowledge the late Dr Apirana Mahuika—or uncle Api, as we all know him—a great leader of Ngāti Porou, a man who only wore Ngāti Porou - tinted glasses and never apologised for it, and a man who, among other attributes, led the claims process for Ngāti Porou.

As I heard from the previous speaker about the tinted glasses of those from Ngāti Porou, I too was brought up thinking that there was only one iwi, and that iwi was Ngāti Porou. I too was brought it with all of those ideas—even though it wasn’t back on the coast of Te Araroa; it was in a little place in the centre of the Manuwatū. That is what I was brought up with: that every Māori in the whole of New Zealand was Ngāti Porou. So you can imagine my shock when I found out, hello, that might not be the case.

I want to acknowledge the ope of Ngāti Porou. Some of them that have come here today were here in 2008. And so today is a journey that is just about at the end of the process that we’re going through for the bill to reach its Royal assent. I want to acknowledge Herewini Pārata, sitting up in the gallery today. I’ve known Herewini for quite some time. He’s, obviously, the Hon Hekia Pārata’s brother—but, also, Heriwini was my brother’s boss at te—at the big Māori—

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Matatini.

JO HAYES: Matatini—that’s it. Te Matatini—in the head; needed to keep going.

While I was not at Parliament during the time, in 2008, when the iwi came here to sign their agreement, I can only imagine the political uproar that was going on as the bill was being negotiated. It was a time when the ill-fated foreshore and seabed legislation had been debated and passed by the former Labour Government—a bill that instantly marginalised iwi Māori customary rights to the moana, and for some non-Māori as well. It was a time that saw the birth of the first and only independent Māori political party to emerge onto the political scene—the Māori Party. Yes, they were rocky times, back then.

As I look around the house I see these political parties that drove that divisive piece of legislation sitting here and standing and moving forward with this piece of legislation. We cannot forget the work of the National Government, when it came in in 2008 and repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. But I digress.

Today, we’re here to celebrate the first reading of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). It is a bill that, in essence, gives effect to the deed of agreement between ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou and the Crown in relation to ngā rohe moana o nga hapū o Ngāti Porou. It is a bill that seeks to achieve outcomes that recognise the unbroken, inalienable, and enduring mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou in relation to ngā rohe moana, which is held and exercised as a collective right. It provides a legal mechanism that supports the expression and protection of the mana of the hapū of Ngāti Porou, generally and in those specific areas where customary marine title rights are recognised. It seeks an outcome that will recognise that the Crown has a responsibility for public access in, on, and over the common marine and coastal area and a role in regulating it; and, finally, it provides certainty about the use and administration of ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou.

Many speakers have most probably already covered the eight mechanisms that were negotiated between Ngāti Porou and the Crown. That requires legislation to have effect of those eight mechanisms. Some of these eight mechanisms look at statutory overlay—that’s a map outlining the moana rohe for Ngāti Porou and relating to resource consent. It’s about customary fishing practices, conservation mechanisms, an environmental covenant, protected customary activities, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas.

It also looks at other areas: official geographic names of features; relationship instruments; as well as other customary marine title mechanisms around permission rights—that’s permission rights for resource consent—to actually approve people to go and harvest, through the Resource Management Act. It looks at customary fishing practices—extended mechanisms that will extend fisheries by allowing a hapū of Ngāti Porou to propose by-laws restricting or prohibiting fishing for sustainable utilisation or cultural reasons in customary marine title areas. Again, there are environmental covenants and conservation processes, and also, areas around the taonga tūturu ownership and minerals ownership of that rohe.

As I stand here I look at this bill, and it is an extraordinary bill. It is an extraordinary bill in the many ways that have been expressed in this House today. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I look forward to receiving the bill into the select committee and to going through the processes—to hear submissions, to hear what the people have to say, and also, to be able to, if we have the opportunity, travel to the East Coast to be able to be part and parcel of the whānau of Ngāti Porou as we go through the submissions process.

I just want to close my contribution today by recognising my late father. Now, my late father was named Paikea. He was named after the ancestor Paikea. So, I close my contribution today by reciting our Ngāti Porou anthem, “Paikea”. And it goes like this:

Uia mai koe whakahuatia ake;

Ko wai te whare nei e?

Ko Te Kani.

Ko wai te tekoteko kei runga?

Ko Paikea! ko Paikea!

Whakakau Paikea.

Whakakau he tipua.

Whakakau he taniwha.

Ka ū Paikea ki Ahuahu. Pakia!

Kei te whitia koe, ko Kahutia-te-rangi.

Me ai tō ure ki te tamāhine a Te Whironui. Aue.

Nāna i noho i te Roto-a-Tahe.

Aue! He koruru koe, koro e.

Ask and you will be told;

What is the name of this house?

It is Te Kani.

Who is the carved figure above it?

It is Paikea! It is Paikea!

Paikea emerges.

A wizard emerges.

A deep-water prodigy is wading ashore.

Paikea lands at Ahuahu. Clap!

Your identity is entwined with Kahutia-te-rangi.

You were intimate with the daughter of Te Whironui. Oh, my.

Who settled at te Roto-a-Tahe.

Alas! You are now a figurehead, old one.

I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): No greater iwi has contributed to the leadership framework of Aotearoa New Zealand than Ngāti Porou.

Nō reira, ōku rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai i tēnei wā; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, my distinguished leaders, let me offer warm greetings to all of you who have come here today; greetings, greetings, greetings to one and all.]

As the proud member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, I am honoured to stand in solidarity with all the members of the House in supporting the introduction of the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2). I want to say what eloquent contributions all members gave in terms of the importance of this particular bill.

It’s probably, for me—listening to both the Minister in his introduction and the former Minister Chris Finlayson, who I also want to acknowledge in terms of their work in bringing this bill—it really is a recognition of what already happens on the coast; it already happens. It’s happened mai rā anō, and so this bill, really, is just acknowledging the undisturbed possession of their moana. This is what we’re doing here today, and it couldn’t come faster.

So I want to acknowledge all those that have worked and also pay tribute to Uncle Api, in terms of his stewardship of this particular bill and his tenacity to work with a former Labour Government in 2008 when it was first signed. It’s done a 10-year bit of a hīkoi, so it’s probably fitting that it’s now going to be passed into law under this coalition Government. I’m really, really proud to be part of that process, but I do want to acknowledge the sincere work of Uncle Api and others that join us here in ushering this bill to its completion.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: And Api was really in favour of law reform too.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Was he?

Hon Christopher Finlayson: He got me on to Te Ture Whenua Māori reform, which you’ve mucked up.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Interesting—interesting. You had 10 years to get this over the line, Mr Finlayson, so we’re happy to pick up the slack. You were gifted it from the last Labour-led Government. Anyway, we’re here to celebrate. This is to acknowledge the mahi that has gone in in the background. And I do want to acknowledge the great leaders of the tribe of Ngāti Porou. I want to acknowledge my Ngāti Porou side.

I’ve got to say, I was raised in a little community—I say it’s the biggest capital city of Gisborne, called Manutuke—and for a long time I actually thought their name was “Ngāti Blow”, because that’s what my auntie used to always say to me: “Watch out for those Ngāti Blows”. So, for a long time, I actually used to think: “Holy, their name’s ‘Ngāti Blow’ ”, because it was a reflection of the way that they were great leaders—I discovered later on—and very proud and very outspoken.

I want to acknowledge my Ngāti Porou side, through my two great-grandmothers—Miriama Pōhatu, nèe McClutchie, on my father’s side; and on my mother’s side, I want to acknowledge Reremoana Hakiwai, nèe Paratene, who was also raised in Tokomaru Bay, with the Pēwhairangi whānau. So these connections, when we are talking about returning—not even returning; it’s acknowledging the undisturbed occupation of the moana with Ngāti Porou through this bill, and it’s always exciting that we have legislation like that that actually does achieve to do that.

What I wanted to contribute in the time that I’ve got left—because, obviously, this bill will go to the Māori Affairs Committee—is a time prior to me coming into the House, and that was the time I served as the chief executive of Ngāti Kahungunu. Going home back in 2009, they had just introduced the Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu ki Tai strategy, and I just offer that up to our whānau in the gallery, Ngāti Porou. That strategy actually empowered hapū to come up with hapū plans, from the mountains to the sea—from the mountains to the sea—and returning the tino rangatiratanga and the mana motuhake to the rightful place of ngā hapū. So I just offer that up to our visitors in the gallery, never to take anyone’s lead, because I know Ngāti Porou will have it sorted going forward in terms of their hapū plans, but if you wanted to look at something that’s already out there and get some feedback, then I would encourage you to make contact. I’m sure Herewini’s probably already spoken to Ngāhiwi about looking and examining that particular strategy. It was a very detailed strategy, and it gave practical tools to hapū around how they go about doing their individual plans. So from the mountain to the sea, we’re here talking about the moana, but I know up in Ngāti Porou the mana extends, like I said, from the mountains to the sea. So there’s a little suggestion that I offer up as my contribution on this bill.

In the time that I’ve got remaining, it is really important to encourage those that may not have signed up to this process—I am talking about the hapū that aren’t signed up—to be active participants when the bill is getting scrutinised at the select committee. I am hopeful, without making that decision for the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, that the hearings will be held in Gisborne, if not at the coast, to make it easier for all our whānau from the coast to come and submit and have their say on this piece of legislation—if anything else, to at least understand what this piece of legislation is attempting to do. So I do encourage both the supporters, which are very important—and this whole House supports this bill—but it’s also to hear from those that may have some issues or perhaps have some ways in which we can strengthen particular parts of the legislation.

I think it’s innovative, what Ngāti Porou’s done here. I’m not surprised. It’s a unique bill in that this will be the only one that we’ll see, because of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, that other members have spoken about. But it’s really to celebrate that this legislation, protecting what has already happened and is happening up the coast, is endured as we go forward. So with that contribution, I wholeheartedly support all those that have spoken on this bill, recognising the leadership and the sacrifice that this iwi has for New Zealand. The leadership they’ve shown for themselves and for Aotearoa New Zealand is something that we cannot celebrate and acknowledge enough. So with those few words, I wholeheartedly stand proudly to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou; mēnā he waiata tā koutou, anei te wā.

[Therefore, it behoves me to thank you all; if you have a song, this is the time for it.]

Waiata

Bills

Families Commission Act Repeal Bill

In Committee

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the provisions to be taken as one debate.

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

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

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call in the committee of the whole House in regard to the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, repealing the Act of 2003. I look forward to this bill because this is a well-written bill. It’s a bill that’s been well-thought-out over a long period of time—in fact, over the last nine years previously, because it is a bill that came under the National-led Government. While this is a good bill, we’ve supported it throughout its different stages, Madam Chair—the changing of the Chairs. Ha, ha! What I would say is that this is a bill that is supported by the National Party as it’s progressing through the House.

However, in the committee of the whole House there are a number of questions that I think are important that we’d like to see answered by the Minister in the chair herself, Carmel Sepuloni, who I think has been on record and has spoken in the House. In fact, her speech was written, though, I have to say, and when she delivered the speech I sensed there was a sense of just regretting reading the speech, because this is a speech that—there was a time in which the Minister, who was a member, actually spoke out strongly about the position of the Government of the day, the National-led Government, and the position it was taking in regard to the changes.

In fact, if we can remember, this is a long history. This is a history that came from 2003. It was an Act that was established out of a coalition agreement. It was done so under the Labour Government at that period of time to ensure that there was a focus in the direction in regard to research and evaluation, that particularly was focused on families to ensure that any Government of the day would take this into account, in particular where there was a concern that there wasn’t enough conversation and discussion, especially around the detail. In particular, this is a Crown entity that was established through this Act, so it had both autonomy to be an advocate to speak on behalf of the needs and the concerns of the community at large. Again, this was led by a Labour-led Government.

So I can understand why this was really difficult for the current Government of the day to be able to take this bill through the House, because, in a sense, we’ve heard from the Minister—and I’d like to make some quotes from the Minister, who spoke at a time where she did not actually agree with the direction of that current Government, which was the National-led Government. In fact, I want to read from her quote, where she talks about the changes that happened in 2014, from the Families Commission to SuPERU. She talks about the fact that the new agency is called the social policy evaluation and research unit, or SuPERU for short. Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni says it speaks volumes about the Government priorities. In fact, she is quoted as saying this: “You have to question how seriously they’re taking the work of the Families Commission.” She also says, “Someone said ‘Well, what do you think?’ I likened it to the type of sticker a child would get in an assembly on a Friday if they behaved themselves all week.” So my question to the Minister in the chair is this—

Hon Andrew Little: You’re not getting one of those stickers this week, Alfred.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: And also, too, the learned member over here, the Hon Andrew Little. This, I’m sure, will interest him as well—is that for the Minister to stand and actually clearly articulate her reasons why she has shifted her position, why she has stood up in this House and given a very strong commitment to the purpose and the principles of this bill, when, quite clearly, there was a position that she held, she spoke very strongly, she talked about the fact that the direction of the current Government of the day in which—oh, sorry. I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I just have no counter; I’m not sure where I’m at at the moment. I’m happy to restart again right from the beginning, if you’d like.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My counter has you with a minute left to go.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m just unaware of the counter up the front there, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s all right—as long as I know, you’re OK.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: OK, thank you, Madam Chair.

Greg O’Connor: No one’s listening anyway.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I know that Greg O’Connor likes my speeches. He gives quite reasonable speeches, even though they are misguided at times.

Anyway, my question to the Minister is really quite simple: can she articulate to the House and to the public the reasons—and articulate them rationally—as to why there has been a change in her position? We’re happy with this bill. We’re supporting this bill all the way through. We think, actually, it’s a bill that is important, because, actually, the intent of effectiveness and efficiencies which are stated in the bill—it was under a National-led Government, and I’d like to remind the Minister, actually, it was passed in July of 2017, last year—where there will be the disestablishment of the Families Commission. So, from our side, from our point of view, there is no mistaking the aspect of the purpose and the reasons why we are supporting this bill. I’d like the Minister in the chair to stand and articulate to us in this Chamber and to the public the reasons why she has changed her position, and to give us a rational reason as to why she is wanting to—[Bell rung] Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Oh, here we go. Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an honour to keep—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I shall concentrate—I shall concentrate.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, yes. Ha, ha! So I’d like the Minister to stand and answer that question. I think that’s critically important, as well.

There’s a second question I also have for the Minister, as well, and that’s particular to the shortened report-back date that has been asked for. Now, one can be quite cynical and can say that when one looks at the factors, maybe they just didn’t have enough work. But when there’s cynicism, there has to be fact. So one needs to only look at the Order Paper, and when one looks at the Order Paper, one would see that, actually, a number of the bills—I’d say 80 percent; probably others could say 90 percent of the bills—that are actually in here that are on the Order Paper have all come from the National Party. I’m not going to use that cynicism. I’m sure there’s a valid reason why we’ve had the shortened report-back date, but the important aspect of the second question to the Minister is why did we have a shortened report-back date?

The reason I say that is that the Minister herself has been very strong and very clear that it’s important that we have an appropriate process, and if one looks at the departmental disclosure statement and if we look at “Part Two: Background Material and Policy Information”, it talks about—the question in 2.1 is this: “Published reviews [and] evaluations: Are there any publicly available inquir[ies], review[s] or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?”

Now, if the Minister is quite clear about her purpose and her reason, then she needs to be clear about the fact that already she’s declared publicly that she’s going to look for a review around data collection and data collation, and the importance of that. She’s asked to go out to engage with the community. It’s a form of inquiry. She’s talking to those who are the stakeholders, the key practitioners at the front line. Also, she’s asking questions of the public. Why then did the Minister, who is using that principle of transparency and engagement in the community—and again the disclosure statement has been very clear. It clearly states that there has been no public inquiry. There has been no review. There’s been no evaluation reports that have been able to inform this bill. So the second question that I think is important, which I’d like the Minister to answer to us here, is, again, that she’s had a clear process and she’s had her principles where she’s engaging into the community. She’s said that quite publicly. Then why in this regard is she not actually enacting the very same principles that I think are really important as well?

If you look further down through the disclosure statement, there is also, too, in 2.3—it talks about the regulatory impact analysis. The question that is asked is this: were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this bill? The answer is no. Well, I have to say that again I’ve been—and we’ve sat on the opposite side of the House. I’ve heard the Minister, who was a member, quite strongly talk about the importance of a regulatory impact statement. Now, all of us in the House—and maybe the members of the public don’t realise the importance of a regulatory impact statement. The role of the regulatory impact statement is to ensure that when we think about the analysis of any form of legislation as it’s proceeding through the House—before we get the Royal assent, before it proceeds to its final reading—we need to know what are the impacts financially, systematically as well, to other key stakeholders that are in there. In fact, I’ve heard the Minister, as a member, argue very strongly: where is the regulatory impact statement? Again, I have to say that I am disappointed, because I would have expected that the Minister would have asked for some form of regulatory impact statement, and, again, when I look at the disclosure statement 2.3, in answer to whether there is one, the reply is no, there’s not.

So there are two questions, and there are other questions that I’d like to pose further on in the debate today. So again I remind the Minister that the first question is the rationale and reason as to why she has changed her position and she is now supporting this bill through the House. I’d have to say that if she wasn’t fully supportive, if she questioned the bill previously and the intent of the previous National-led Government, then why did she not put it under the scrutiny that she would have expected to have happened? Why are there no reviews, inquiries, or evaluation? Why is there no regulatory impact statement, that I would’ve expected the Minister would have required before stepping forward? As difficult as it may have been to be able to swallow the fact that she is now having to adopt—and also, too, without amendment—a bill that she spoke very strongly in the direction of, from the previous Government, I think it’d be important for the Minister to stand and give us a reason for that.

The last question that I’d like to ask is in regard to the regulatory impact analysis: why she has not required for this process to have a regulatory impact statement as well.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’ll just quickly respond to a few of the questions asked by the Hon Alfred Ngaro and then allow someone else to take a call.

This is pretty straightforward. The honourable member Alfred Ngaro has asked why we didn’t take this out, why we didn’t do a review, why we haven’t consulted widely, and why we haven’t had an inquiry. Well, the number one reason is because every political party in the House agreed with this. We need to keep in mind here that this was well under way before the current Government took office. It was actually instigated by the previous Government. The previous Government had set a schedule for when they expected it to be disestablished, which is 30 June, which is what we’ve continued with and which is what you will see in this bill.

The member has asked why there’s no regulatory impact statement. It’s because the advice that we received from Treasury was that none was required because this is so straightforward. And the member has asked why I’ve changed my position from I think, maybe—I don’t know how long it was; I can’t remember the date that the member stated. But, really, the reason was that, when looking at this, it’s very clear to all of us in the House that at the time the Families Commission was set up in 2004, it was a very different social context. What we’ve got now, in particular, is a better understanding of the diversity of New Zealand families and of the drivers of families and well-being. We’ve also got heightened expectations that agencies will work with each other on investing for social well-being, and I’ll also say that what we’ve also got now, most significantly, is a Government with a clear focus on improving the well-being of New Zealanders, hence why there is no longer a requirement for a Families Commission.

But I do want to remind the House that this is straightforward. Every party in this House supports this bill. So I think it’s important that we do analyse any areas that might genuinely be of concern, but that that really be where the focus is. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It does give me great pleasure to speak in the committee stage of this bill and particularly to follow my colleague on the Social Services and Community Committee Mr Ngaro. Now, it’s been for me, coming on this committee and this bill and having followed it the whole way through, quite an eye-opener. It’s interesting that you are sort of suggesting that we have another inquiry, actually, Mr Ngaro. I just wonder if you do listen to any of your colleagues in the House who have been somewhat critical of that same practice. I suggest that instead of perhaps whatever does distract you there, next time you’re in the House you actually have a listen, because when we have inquiries on this side of the House, they’re ones that, as a detective, I know are designed to establish facts that we’re going to need, establish things that we require to make this country a better country.

As I’ve watched this piece of legislation go through, again it’s been a wonderful eye-opener because what it does is it serves as something of a metaphor for the last Government, who really believed that if you broke everything down into its component bits, then everything would actually come right. Again—I repeat something from last week—one of the most disgraceful comments I heard was from Mr English, the previous Prime Minister, who said, “Now that you’ve taken these things off, these public servants of New Zealand will sit down with their feet up again around New Zealand.” Well, that was an absolute disgrace and it actually belittled the Public Service—the very hard-working Public Service of New Zealand. But I will come back down to the substance of the bill. It’s good to see that we are dealing with the debate as a whole, instead of breaking it down into parts.

We also did hear the submissions during this bill from the National Council of Women of New Zealand, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, and the Public Service Association. One thing that really came through on all of those submissions was they were all very concerned to make sure that the intent of what we were trying to achieve with this was achieved. They were worried that what had actually happened in the past was that each Government department found they were actually able to shove this off to the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU)—the work they should have been doing themselves—because they were so busy actually delivering those minute targets, those minute key performance indicators that were a feature of what they did. So even the information that came out of it, even the research and the data that came out, couldn’t be relied on, because they were so busy ensuring that what they were producing kept the Minister of the day happy.

Well, that’s changing, because what’s actually now—again, I go back to particularly Part 1 here; if you break down clause 5—happening is the transferring of responsibility of the Family Violence Clearinghouse to the ministry. So what that will do is make sure that they understand they’re part of the whole strategy and make sure that each of the Government departments now understands this is where you start: you go to the end, to what success looks like, and you work backwards. Now, by ensuring that that work and the different components of what SuPERU did—and I might say that having produced 6,514 publications during their time, they did some great work—do go back, the departments now understand what it is we are trying to achieve.

Just the mention of the extra funding, for example, around the Family Violence Clearinghouse, which has now gone to the Ministry of Justice: the funding this week—$76.157 million is to go into that area. Again, with the research, the work that’s been done, they actually now will not only have the responsibility; they will have the ability of knowing exactly what it is that they are expected to achieve.

Again, one of the other parts under clause 6 is transferring responsibility of the Hub—which, of course, is a one-stop shop for New Zealand social science, Government research to the Social Investment Agency. Again, through that agency, as I mentioned before, there are 6,514 publications, and that’s all their research relating to education, health and well-being, crime and justice, families, and children and young people—all those things are going to the Social Investment Agency. Again, it is making sure that the research—making sure the work they’ve done—is not just there; it’s something they can actually act on. They’ve got that material, they’ve got that research, and they can do the job that New Zealand requires of them. They will not be sitting with their feet on their desk; they will now have a full understanding of what it is, what success looks like, and be part of it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I am disappointed with that member who’s resumed his seat, Greg O’Connor, that he would take the opportunity to attack a very longstanding member of Parliament who left this year. I actually think it’s the sort of thing that people don’t do in this House and I’m sorry he has done it, and perhaps he needs to get a few lessons from someone who’s been here a bit longer—very disappointing from a former police officer who should know better.

Having said that, I was very interested in the contribution of my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I thought it was very informative and it helped, I think, the committee to gain some idea about why this is an excellent bill, started by the National Government, to get rid of the Families Commission. I say “get rid of”, because that’s exactly what I always wanted to do—get rid of the Families Commission. I have been—

Hon Andrew Little: You never did it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, we did actually; we put the bill in. And of course the Families Commission—[Interruption] Yet another contribution from the very angry member, a Mister, a Minister, Andrew—what’s his name—Little.

Anyway, let’s go back to the bill. This bill is an excellent bill, because the Families Commission started in 2002 and we all know why it started. Having listened to the Government members, you’d think it just sort of turned up one day under a National Government. Oh, no, no, no, no—it started under a Labour Government and that was the price for part of the coalition deal with United Future. You’ll remember Mr Peter Dunne. That was how they kept their coalition together—they needed to have that. The Families Commission was also a great place to put such other worthy people as Dr Rajen Prasad and other outstanding contributors to New Zealand.

I’m not sure, though, having heard that there have been—what—150, 160 papers or something written by them, how many of them have been read. I’m not sure. I’d like a show of hands in the Chamber. Anybody want to contribute and acknowledge that they’ve read too many of them? Yes, the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni; she values the commission, but here she is championing a bill started by National to get rid of it.

Simeon Brown: A hand up over here, Judith.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, and a hand over here. Where? Jan Logie—have you read any of them?

Jan Logie: I have.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: She’s fantastic, isn’t she? That’s what you do when you’ve got more time on your hands than some of us.

I think that it is a great bill, and, of course, the only reason the Families Commission was ever there in the first place was because of Peter Dunne, the Hon Peter Dunne.

Kieran McAnulty: How did you not win the leadership?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Who was that young man over there with all the facial hair—with all that facial hair? What’s his name? I don’t think we’ve seen him before in the Chamber, Madam Chair. I think he must be a new contributor.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I know it’s late on Thursday afternoon, but—

Hon Member: He’s gone as red as that Labour box.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He has gone as red as that Labour box, hasn’t he? It’s about as red as his hair, too, isn’t it?

Anyway, apart from that, it is a great day when unanimity can break out around Parliament and we can wave goodbye to a really silly institution set up so that we can all tell everybody how to bring up children and to have families. I always think it is pretty easy really. If you want to have a good life for your kids, be good parents. It seems to work pretty well for most people, and, strangely enough, all of that’s been done without reading one of those papers. But it did keep people employed, and that’s a good thing. Dr Rajen Prasad was happy. He was employed, and various other worthies and notable people in New Zealand with lots of awards and things—and I think, you know, that’s a good thing. It kept them off the streets. It didn’t keep him out of Parliament though; he turned up in Parliament for the Labour Party for one term, I think.

But, having said that, it’s probably contributed almost nothing to New Zealand, but it did keep a Labour Government in place and it did certainly help to keep a National-led Government in place. Anything that keeps a National-led Government in place must be actually quite a good thing, because, as most people know—everyone I associate with agrees—a National-led Government is always better for New Zealand than a Labour-led Government, and, day in, day out I’m reminded of that in question time, and in this House.

But, anyway, isn’t it wonderful to see that this bill is coming through? I’d like to congratulate my colleagues who were able to get this through, because we’ve finally, finally helped to end a career—along with Mr Greg O’Connor, who wants to take full credit.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I stand to speak to the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill in its committee stage here today, and I assure you that my contribution will be far less entertaining than that of Judith Collins, the member who just resumed her seat. Entertaining and valuable as that was, mine will refer back to the bill—and this bill actually does take another step further towards the move towards the greater efficiencies and the effectiveness within the social investment system. As we’ve heard already from our great contributors on this side of the Chamber, the Social Investment Agency and the work that they will be doing are transformational for New Zealand and families within New Zealand.

The repeal of the Families Commission Act of 2003 is what we are here to talk about today. The bill is a very small one, as the Minister for Social Development has referred to; it is a matter of process. It will, in effect, be repealing the Families Commission Act of 2003, which disestablishes the Families Commission, and that has operated as the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU), which is an autonomous Crown agency. So with the establishment of the Social Investment Board and the Social Investment Agency last year, they have made the Families Commission and SuPERU obsolete, hence the need for this small piece of legislation to make its way through the House.

Part 2 is the part of the bill that I’d like to focus on in my small contribution today. It is the most substantive part of the bill and it contains clauses 7 through to 12. I’d like to focus on clause 10. Unlike the other matters which are contained within the schedule connected to Part 1, this clause does not relate to assets or to research, but does, in fact, relate to staff.

I take the opportunity to thank the SuPERU staff and the contractors involved with SuPERU and the board: Len Cook, the Families Commissioner; Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, a board member; Dame Tariana Turia, a board member; Jo-anne Wilkinson, a board member; and Haami Piripi, also a board member. I acknowledge the wealth of expertise they have individually and collectively brought to their role and all of the hard work that they have contributed over the years of the existence of that board and the work that they have done on behalf of New Zealand families.

They have laid a foundation—a solid foundation—of data and evidence. We know that, “In God we trust, all others must bring data.” These people have worked across the whole of the sector.

Simeon Brown: That was entertaining.

MAUREEN PUGH: Oh, was it? Thank you very much—thank you very much. They have promoted informed debate on the key social issues here in New Zealand for its families and the whānau, and they’ve increased the awareness of what works in New Zealand. They’ve grown the quality, the relevance, and the quantity of evidence in some of our most key priority areas, and they’ve also facilitated the use of evidence by sharing it and using it. Now, we know that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence, so the importance of having that research behind us is very critical to the decisions that we make and the Government makes going forward.

There was a part of the submission process that I’d like to refer to, which was from the Children’s Commissioner. He raised the point that he felt that there would be a gap that would appear with the disestablishment of the Families Commission, and the gap that he mentioned was the allocation of one of its two roles—its two main statutory functions—specifically, advocacy. He suggested during his verbal submission that the Children’s Commissioner’s role could be expanded to include advocacy.

So my question for the Minister is: could she provide feedback on whether this advocacy role is intended to be reallocated, or say how she will ensure that the necessary dialogues take place with those various agencies so that the advocacy for our most vulnerable families is not lost? I think that would satisfy the Children’s Commissioner, but would also give us assurance that there was not going to be a gap. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just to respond to the last two speakers, can I just say, with regards to the advocacy role, there’s no intention to reallocate that. We like to think that, as a Government, we’re going to advocate quite adequately for families and the well-being of New Zealanders across Government agencies.

I also just want to go back and acknowledge Maureen Pugh, the speaker who just spoke, for paying her respects to those who have actually been in charge of the Families Commission and who have been on the board of the Families Commission.

Just reflecting on the member who spoke prior to her, the Hon Judith Collins, who seemed to be slightly negative about the people that have headed the Families Commission—and I do want to remind this committee, with that in mind, that one of our own members, Parmjeet Parmar, was appointed by the National Government to be the head of the Families Commission in 2013. So we do pay our respects to all those that have been involved with the running and the governance of the Families Commission.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s a good day. It’s the end of the parliamentary session for the week, and I’m energised by the Hon Judith Collins and what she had to say. Before I started this journey in this House, I watched the Families Commission and I watched Dr Roger Prasad—

Hon Members: Rajen.

LAWRENCE YULE: Rajen Prasad—my apologies. I watched what he was doing, from my living room, and I thought, “Does that bureaucracy actually add anything to New Zealand?” And I never thought it did. Until I got here to this House, I didn’t actually realise that it was set up by the Labour Government, and it was slowly killed by the Hon Judith Collins and now is being finally put to sleep today. Actually, this bill—

Kieran McAnulty: It’s not the only thing. She’s done that before.

LAWRENCE YULE: Yes, I know, but this bill is actually a minute part of the process. We are shutting things down, getting rid of assets, making sure staff are dealt with fairly, disestablishing the board—all those things that need to happen by 30 June. So it is wrap-up legislation. There has been a shortened reporting period—all those things—but it is simply tidying up the loose ends of a decision made by Cabinet in July of last year—a National Government that disestablished the Families Commission.

That whole approach—what was started and how it has transitioned now—by the former National Government was actually to reinforce social investment in New Zealand, to actually say you have to fundamentally change people’s lives by investing in families in a targeted way. I’ve read some of the research in the Growing Up in New Zealand work. I’ve read some of that research, and as a parent myself, I agree with the Hon Judith Collins that it’s pretty self-evident what that would say: basically, if families have good parents, it makes a huge difference not only to the children but to society and to how the State has to intervene. That’s really what that study shows.

Now, I want to ask the Minister today, as part of this committee stage, what is going to happen to the data that has been collected over eight years, of 7,000 voices, and how is that going to be used? I actually think, honourable Minister, that has some value, and if you throw that away, you have lost those learnings.

Hon Peeni Henare: You could’ve read the departmental report.

LAWRENCE YULE: Yeah, I understand that, but I want an assurance for those people that have worked for eight years—that have worked for eight years—that they will continue to be involved. I am completely supportive of the disestablishment of the Families Commission and the integration of the social investment model. Actually, I want to give real credit to the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Bill English, who championed—and I went to presentations and speeches of his. I sat him in my office when I was the mayor of Hastings, and we talked about the issues in my home town. Actually, for a small number of families, a massive investment by the State and caring in a wraparound set of services would have been far better than a broad-spectrum approach. The Rt Hon Bill English saw that and saw the cost to the State, the nation, and us, as taxpayers, if that wasn’t done properly.

I don’t know how much the Hon Judith Collins was involved in this decision to disestablish—I expect quite a lot. But she would only do that if there was another strategy that was going to be better, and that’s what the National Government brought into power before the last election. A lot of that stuff is now being carried on. I’m looking forward to the day that the Minister announces how the new data is going to be collected—

Hon Andrew Little: It’s called “being fixed up”, Lawrence.

LAWRENCE YULE: —how it’s going to be managed—“It’s all being fixed up.”? I haven’t seen much action yet. I’ve heard a lot of talk, a lot of reports. How many reviews are we up to? About 74? Ninety?

Hon Members: 90.

LAWRENCE YULE: Ninety—we’re up to 90 reviews. I haven’t seen any action so far.

When you get back to this bill and the specifics of this bill—and it’s listed here—it is really quite simple: it is a winding down provision taking care of all the things that need to be taken care of, not before time. But, actually, the foundation that has been built in New Zealand under the social investment model—this side of the Chamber will proudly champion that through this term of the Government, of your Government, and when we get back into Government, because it is the best way of supporting my children, their children, and all of New Zealand’s children. It gives me pleasure to support this bill as we wind this entity down.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Before I call the next speaker, can I just remind, perhaps, the newer members in the House that you are actually addressing the chair, so when you use the word “you”, you are talking about me. OK?

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. Now, of course, I want to draw members’ attention to the general policy statement for this bill, which is very clear that the reason the National Government introduced this legislation to repeal the Families Commission Act was that we wanted to achieve greater effectiveness and greater efficiency—two principles that, of course, National-led Governments focus on because we know that we are stewards of other people’s money, that we should use it effectively, and that we should make sure that we use it efficiently. Those are two principles that members opposite would do well to remember, and it’s good to see them being focused on in this legislation.

The purpose statement is clear, also, that what we wanted to ensure was that the provision of social science research and advocacies for families generally would be transferred to more suitable agencies. I want to ask some questions of the Minister today in relation to some of the specifics of this bill, particularly as they relate to schedule 1, clause 1, which is the section of the bill that requires that matters in this legislation be transferred to other agencies. My question is: in disestablishing the Families Commission, can she confirm what of this work will be included in the work programme for the Social Investment Agency?

Fellow members, I’ve read the briefing to the incoming Minister from the Social Investment Agency and I commend that briefing to this House, because what that briefing outlines is a great range of work which is designed to make the lives of New Zealand’s families better by harnessing data, by harnessing research, by taking what that tells us to focus resources where they can make the biggest difference—not just putting money wherever it sounds good in a sound bite, but putting it where it makes the biggest difference. So I ask the Minister: what work that is disestablished from the Families Commission will now be included in the work programme for the Social Investment Agency?

I’m also—like the previous member, Lawrence Yule, was—very interested in this question of the Growing Up in New Zealand report. What that report shows us is that we have a whole lot of information in New Zealand about what it takes to support a child to grow up well and what is required to support a family to be strong. So, again, I ask: how is it that this Government is going to ensure that that contract is managed well, that the findings from it and that the data from it are put to use? We have seen an allergy on the other side of the House. We have seen a discomfort with the idea that we might use facts and data—that we might harness them to better focus social investment. So I’d like to hear from the Minister whether or not, in fact, the information we gain from the Growing Up in New Zealand report will continue to be used well for New Zealand taxpayers.

I then also want to ask that, in progressing this legislation, are we right to assume that the Government has decided to continue this legislation because it agrees with the former National Government that we should be realigning resources to ensure that we are supporting social investment? There have been some contradictory statements on that, and it is a presumption in this bill that that is what will continue. So I’d like the Minister to discuss that in some detail, if she could.

There is a final question here that I think is very important, which is that, in doing a repeal bill like this, which this side of the House supports, we would like to know what responsibilities, resources, and contractual obligations the social policy evaluation and research unit is yet to delegate. We know that the former National Government was very efficient in ensuring that a number of those responsibilities and obligations were delegated to other agencies who could incorporate them into their work. But we remain interested in what further responsibilities and resources and contractual obligations are yet to be delegated.

Specifically, members, let’s think about the work here that National saw could be put to better use if taken out of the Families Commission and put elsewhere. We looked at the Families and Whānau Status Report, and we said, “Let’s put that into the Ministry of Social Development where it can be better integrated with other work.” We took the example of the Family Violence Clearinghouse, and we said, “Let’s put that into the Ministry of Justice, where, again, we can integrate that to make sure that the decisions being made at the Ministry of Justice policy level better provide for New Zealand families.” We took the Government’s social science research hub and we put that into the Social Investment Agency. We also took the data, analytics, and insight functions of the Families Commission and put them into the Social Investment Agency.

So it is right to ask the Minister: can we be assured that the Social Investment Agency is continuing to use that data, to use that work, in the way which the National Government presumed that it would, for the betterment of New Zealand families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Both speakers that have just spoken, Lawrence Yule and Nicola Willis, have asked what is happening with the resource. It’s very clear in the bill, so I will just refer both members to Part 1, clause 5, and the relevant provisions in Schedule 1 provide for a disestablishment of the Families Commission in an orderly and manageable way. This will also minimise any potential disruption to stakeholders. Steps have already been under way to remove key functions from the Families Commission.

This work started before we got into Government. I just want to remind the member that just spoke: it’s OK for us to agree on some things in this House. It’s OK for all political parties to support a move. I have no qualms in saying that this shift started under the previous Government, and if they want to take pride in that, that’s OK too. We’re not going to argue about that; it’s absolutely OK.

As the member said—and I’ll inform Lawrence Yule as well—responsibility for the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study and producing the annual Families and Whānau Status Report has been transferred to the Ministry of Social Development, and they’ve got quite a responsible Minister, I think! The accountability for the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse has been shifted to the Ministry of Justice—good Minister over there. The Hub, our one-stop shop for New Zealand’s social science research, has moved to the Social Investment Agency.

So the plans, in terms of where the resourcing would shift, were already under way; we’ve just continued with that work. We’re continuing to meet the deadline that had been set by the previous Government, which is the responsible thing to do. We didn’t take a long period of time, in terms of considering this bill or putting it out for review or inquiry, because we all agree and the schedule and time line is already in place.

The members also asked what we’re doing with social investment. The member would know that I announced on Monday that we will be going out to consult with the public, with NGOs, with iwi, and with iwi organisations on our data protection use policy, but also on our approach, which is the “Investing for Social Wellbeing” approach. If the member wants to know, I can tell her now that the key differences are that this Government’s primary focus is not on fiscal liability; it’s actually on the well-being of New Zealanders, and looking at ways that we can maximise human potential.

The other difference is that we’re not going to be so narrowly focused just on analytical data, because we believe that human experience, client experience, provider experience, and human conversations and interactions are really important as well—so really extending it beyond where the previous Government were at, and also making sure that we build public trust around what we’re doing, because there was such a lack of that with the previous Government and their social investment approach. Public trust, particularly with data, is integral to us being able to use data effectively. We need to do that because—just like the previous Government wanted to do, but didn’t quite get there—we want to make sure that we’re informing our services so that they are effective for the service users, for the clients, for the New Zealanders that need to access that support.

So, in some ways, we’re on the same page. I think the previous Government had the same intention, in some ways, as what we do; however, we have different beliefs and ways in which we think we need to get there. So those are the key differences, and I hope that that is a good enough explanation for that member.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just really want to take a call to deal with some of the issues raised that I thought were very sensible—well, not many, actually, from the Government, but anyway. I think one of the issues really is around this information. We’ve heard quite a lot about the—what is it called now?—social well-being or something, that they want to do now rather than social investment. I think there is an acknowledgment that we actually have a lot of information about what works for families, what works for children in particular, what works for the elderly, what works generally. It used to be called common sense, but apparently it’s not that common any more. We also know that we’ve had some—

Greg O’Connor: Dollars and sense help.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —really great longitudinal studies. I wish that Mr Greg O’Connor would be quiet—silly man. We have great longitudinal studies out of Christchurch, out of Canterbury University, and out of Otago—many of us have met with the people who run those. They’ve looked at families over the years, and particularly young kids—taken them up from birth, really; before birth even—to see how they have coped in life and what has been thrown at them, and what has actually worked for them and what hasn’t. Those longitudinal studies from New Zealand are quoted all over the world. I was very interested to hear once, when I was in the United States, that the New Zealand studies are considered to be world class and are looked at by other countries to see what they should do and help them inform their social policy. So it always felt, I think, that the Families Commission were already doing a job that was being very well done. But they did try to make the most of their opportunity to research.

Ultimately, I think most people don’t like being the subject of research. They like to benefit from them, but actually they’re sick of being looked at and poked and prodded and asked what they think. They actually want Governments and Government agencies, their families, their communities to help them, not to view them. People are not animals in a zoo, and even the animals in a zoo don’t like being looked at and prodded, I’m sure.

I think most people know exactly what’s needed in families. The trouble is, of course, that knowing it is entirely different from actually delivering on it. I think the social investment policies of the National-led Government were an acknowledgment that we have, in many cases, families that we all know in our electorates—in areas where list MPs are based or electorate MPs represent—often no more than four, five, or six of them who have, it seems to me, a social agency at their door every day, if not more than one, and sometimes together and sometimes not. The issue has always been how to best use those vast resources of the State and the taxpayer to better help families and not make them more dependent, and actually help them to overcome their challenges in life, wherever possible, and to genuinely make their lives better.

I sometimes look at some of the interventions that Governments of all hues and whatever do, and agencies do, and I wonder sometimes if they do make things better for some families. I think in some cases they will, in many cases they will, but I often look at them and think: has much changed? And for some families, they actually haven’t changed that much. Some people will say, “Oh, they’ve got worse in this case.”, or “They’ve got better in this case.” But overall the State is a very, very bad parent. The State is an extraordinarily bad parent. When we look at the prison population we see, amongst everything else, that around 70 percent of the people in prison have been, at some stage, in the care of the State.

I don’t blame the State for that at all, actually. I think the State tries its very best with very difficult situations, and I would say that children do not end up in the care of the State because their parents have been doing a fabulous job. They end up there, in most cases, because no responsible parent is caring for that child, and by the time they come into the care of the State, a tremendous amount of harm has been done to that child—and why would we presume that that will just be overcome?

So I think the Families Commission certainly looked at this issue very seriously. They did their best. But, ultimately, they’re research papers. I think, too, that the longitudinal studies are actually the gold standard, the world standard. We do know that the Families Commission was something that Governments of both sorts had to put up with, and made the most of it. I don’t wish to belittle the very earnest members of the Families Commission, who in many cases I know and are very responsible people who tried their best, but, ultimately, it was a creation of Parliament in 2003 for a political reason, and we continued it, as well. So let’s just be frank about it.

I’m delighted that it’s ending, because I think in many cases it was seen as some sort of panacea or band-aid and, ultimately, I think we all pretty much know—although some would admit it more than others—what actually makes a good life for kids; it is a good family, responsible parents. And if the parents aren’t available or are not there or dead or whatever, it needs someone else who cares enough to say no, and that’s someone who cares enough to make sure that kids go to school, that they have food, that they are clean, that they are clothed, and that they are loved. That is something that no commission can do. No commission and no State can love a child like a child needs to be loved, and that’s what needed.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We heard from Minister Sepuloni about their view on social investment, which was more of a new-age, feel-good, “Kumbaya” sort of approach towards social investment. I’d be interested to hear from the Minister that’s currently in the chair, Peeni Henare, about what he sees as what social investment is. So while they’ve talked about the fact that it’s all about the people and not about the money, can I say to the members that are over there, and the Ministers, that they’ll find out very quickly—and I’m sure they have—that the money is just as important as the approach they are taking.

Can I remind the Government of the day and the members across the Chamber where that social investment actually came from and the line of inquiry—because that’s what they call it: it’s a line of inquiry—as to the reasons why we ask the questions that we ask.

Diane Robertson, who was the previous commissioner for the Auckland City Mission, did a study called the 100 study. What it was was 100 clients that had come through their services. In that study, they’d ask them the questions about the services that they received over a period of around about three months. As the review came back, the study was then amended and then also brought forward so that we could understand under the executive summary what were the key issues and what were the key findings.

It was out of one of those studies in particular that the Rt Hon Bill English—and I do take a bit of an exception to Greg O’Connor talking about the fact that there was a little bit of a flippant approach to social investment, because, out of that approach, here’s one of the findings of that story. There was a mother who had two children. One of those children had Asperger’s. So when she was looking for the social, health, and medical support that she needed—in a period over three months, in particular—she had 22 different service providers that she went and approached. Now, out of those 22, 95 percent of them did not give her the service that she needed, were not hospitable, and were not commendable to actually help her in any other way bar one service provider. And here’s the one service provider that not only met her needs but accommodated for her and her children and found a way for her to achieve what she needed to achieve: that organisation was Instant Finance.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Is Instant Finance is this bill?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I’ll tell you what, this is a true study. It has to do with the bill—this is about social investment; it’s about the bill that’s in line here.

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. As entertaining and as interesting as it is, this has nothing to do with the bill. It’s not a debate on social investment; it’s a debate on a bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is solely for my judgment. This is quite a wide-ranging debate, now that we are taking it as one part. Social investment is certainly part of the discussion around the dissolution of the Families Commission.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that’ll be a great learning for the bearded elf on the other side. He may learn a little bit.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member knows very well that he is to refer to other members by their proper name only.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He does, indeed. Thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I withdraw and apologise. The point that I’m trying to make, which does relate to the bill—and this is about research and evaluation, and the member can look at that; that’s the reason why it’s called the social policy evaluation and research unit—was about the line of inquiry that the social investment approach was taking. It was not based because it was policy people that came together; it was based on actual practitioners and stakeholders that were on the ground working with family and whānau. What they said was this: the system needs to change. In other words, there’s a line of inquiry that needs to ask some pretty tough questions to the system.

The reason why the Rt Hon Bill English took this—and it’s been part of his legacy that he leaves behind here in Parliament and in New Zealand—was, first of all, to hold the mirror to the system itself, to all the Government departments, about the fact of how do we know that we’re making a difference.

So here’s the question: for every dollar that we invest, for every dollar that’s taxpayer funded, into a system called the Government departments, how do we know it’s making a difference for family and for whānau? That was the line of inquiry that was asked—hence the reason why it was holding them to account. While Mr O’Connor gets up and talks about how it’s about the Public Service putting their feet up—no, it wasn’t, but it was asking them that hard question: how do we know that we’re making a difference? That’s the line of inquiry.

This is not about feel-good. This is not a “Kumbaya”. This is more than just about the people; it’s about how the system best serves the people. So I have to say, the question now to the Minister who’s sitting there is this: will they continue the same line of inquiry? Yes, you’ve said you’re going to take up the social investment. You’ve then appropriated the different roles and responsibilities to the Government of the day. Sorry Madam Chair—they’ve appropriated different roles of responsibilities out to the different Ministers, the joint Ministers that are responsible. The question that I have is this: will you still follow the line of inquiry that asks the tough questions to Government departments? Will you then say to them this: “How do you know—”. Oh sorry, Madam Chair, I do apologise; I’ve been using your name.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

Debate interrupted.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, and no progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.