Thursday, 21 June 2018

THURSDAY, 21 JUNE 2018

THURSDAY, 21 JUNE 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Consideration of legislation next week will include the first reading of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, and the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. The remaining stages of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill will be completed on Thursday, 28 June. All things going according to plan, Wednesday, 28 June will be a members’ day.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Confidence in Ministers

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: How can he have confidence in the Minister in charge of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, David Parker, when it has been reported he has close personal relationships with high-end property developers who have sought exemptions from the bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that we inherited that deal from a former Minister Steven Joyce, who did not go through the consultation process, and if Amy Adams knew anything about the law she would know that full well. That being the case, Treasury gave us one set of advice, and the Speaker referred to a separate set of advice. As a consequence, we’ve acted on the Speaker’s advice.

Hon Paula Bennett: How can he have confidence in his Minister in charge of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, when he said, “We want the prices of New Zealand homes, whether it be a lakeside station, the best [homes] in the Bay of Islands or … modest homes in our towns and cities, to be set by local buyers, not on the international market … New Zealanders should not be outbid by wealthier foreign buyers.”, when that Minister’s own bill now excludes exemptions allowing that to occur?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That summation by that member is demonstrably wrong. For land and for houses, that statement is totally false. What is true—because we do listen to the market, and being so close to it, we do understand how it works—is we’ve ensured there are some exemptions where apartments are concerned.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has expressed concern about New Zealanders being outbid when buying land by wealthier foreign buyers but now supports a bill that proposes exempting those wealthier foreign buyers?

SPEAKER: Before I allow the question, I want an assurance from the questioner that the statement was made as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Hon Paula Bennett: Speaking to that, sir, I purposely left it quite broad and not a direct quote, where he has expressed concern repeatedly in many contexts and while the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

SPEAKER: No, the question was whether the statement was made as Minister of Foreign Affairs as opposed to the leader of the New Zealand First Party.

Hon Paula Bennett: I haven’t given a direct quote of a statement made by the Minister.

SPEAKER: What I’m going to do is give the member another chance to get a question which is within order.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, sir. Does he have confidence in his Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, when he said in this House last week that he defined a prison officer who was grabbed on the buttock, squeezed quite hard, and then followed and intimidated by the prisoner as suffering “a pinch on the bottom”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I do have is confidence in a justice Minister who understands—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I’ll answer the question if you’ll just give me a chance to, Mr Smith, not make that poppycock type of shouting you do every day in this House, to every question. Can I say I have confidence in a Minister of Justice who understands the gradations in levels of sexual offending and he expressed one. What would the member do?

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he consider a woman grabbed in the workplace for a prolonged period of time and followed and intimidated to be the victim of an indecent assault?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Depending on the facts and not the hypotheticals, and if the facts were proven, that would be a sexual assault, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: How can he have confidence in his Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Ethnic Communities, Michael Wood, when he said, “The office of Ethnic Communities is moving into premises in Onehunga, which will be shared with list MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan. We’ve boosted that support that we’re providing in terms of connecting with ethnic communities, so we have more staff members working in our ethnic communities outreach teams.”, and the editor of the Onehunga Community News says she has a recording of him saying that?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The comments made by Michael Wood were made in his capacity as a local member of Parliament, and the first part of the quote that Paula Bennett mentions is not actually a quote. It is a reporter’s reporting. It is not a quote of anything that Michael Wood said.

SPEAKER: Can I first—[Interruption] No, sorry, I’m going to deal with this matter first. Can I first check with the Hon Paula Bennett whether the first part of what she indicated was a quote was in fact contained in quotation marks in the publication in question?

Hon Paula Bennett: Yes, sir, it was.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Right, the Acting Prime Minister will answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the reports on the opening of the labour office were wrong. They were misreported. And the office is a labour office for—

Hon Member: It’s a tape recording.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon?

Hon Member: There’s a tape recording.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The office is a labour office for ethnic communities funded by Parliamentary Service, not an office of ethnic community services.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Prime Minister be asking to hear the recording from the Onehunga Community News as they believe they have a direct quote from the under-secretary?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What the Prime Minister will be doing is asking that member to produce a report to this Parliament and back up her allegations. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Nathan Guy.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can he have confidence that his Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Ethnic Communities is not misusing taxpayer-funded money by having offices of bureaucrats attached to Labour electorate offices?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because of my last two answers, and more importantly, if that member wants to make that allegation, please turn up in in Parliament with the proof, and then we’ll be able to examine the evidence. But I and my colleagues are just too busy to do her work for her.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the article from the Onehunga Community News. I know that we don’t normally table media articles, but this is not a widely circulated publication. Anybody looking at it will see that there are no quotation marks over the statement that Paula Bennett has told the House was a quote.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to put it to the House; I am going to ask the member to give it to Paula Bennett so that she, if appropriate, can correct her statement to me, which would be a serious misleading if it was correct. Further supplementary? Sorry, you’ve finished?

Hon Paula Bennett: I’m done, thank you.

SPEAKER: OK.

Economy—Government Policies

2. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Will this Government’s policies help transition the economy; if so, how?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes. The Government is ambitious for New Zealand’s economy. Through our research and development tax credit we’re encouraging Kiwi businesses to look at how they can do new things in different ways. Through our initiatives, such as the Green Investment Fund, we’ll be working with the private sector to make investments that benefit New Zealanders in the present, without compromising our ability to meet our future needs, and through our Provincial Growth Fund we’re investing to ensure New Zealanders in the regions get the same opportunities to fulfil their potential as those living in our main centres. This Government has put in place the policies to help transition our economy to one that is more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is this transition necessary?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, if we look back at New Zealand’s growth over recent years, it’s very clear why it’s necessary. First, we’ve seen growth driven by an out-of-control housing market and population growth—that’s not sustainable. Nor is it sustainable to ignore both our international obligations on climate change and the damage to New Zealand’s brand and reputation in the world from failing to shift to a lower carbon economy. Secondly, the growth we’ve seen has not translated into meaningful improvements to many New Zealanders’ lives. That’s why this Government is changing our focus to an economy that is more sustainable and inclusive.

Willow-Jean Prime: What will a successful economic transition look like?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A successful transition will result in an economy where we have productive businesses that can do more with what they have, sustainable growth that meets our needs without compromising our ability to do so in the future, and inclusive growth that improves the well-being of all New Zealanders and enables a just transition for businesses and communities. This transition will take time, but we have the building blocks in place, and we can see today in the GDP numbers that the transition is beginning, with growth in business services, information, media, and telecommunications—major contributors to GDP growth.

Hon AMY ADAMS: How is this Government helping transition the economy to becoming more productive when Statistics New Zealand figures published just this morning show real per capita growth is going backwards and is now at its lowest level since 2011?

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers I just want to say to the people in both those quadrants at the back, can they keep their mouths shut while questions are being asked.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the release from Statistics New Zealand shows today is that GDP growth for the quarter was in line with what economists were expecting. Thirteen of 16 industries grew in the quarter; annual GDP growth was 2.7 percent, in line with the OECD average; and, interestingly, business investment is up 5.5 percent year on year, compared with 3.7 percent in the previous year under that member’s party. Businesses are investing in the economy. The member should join in. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, the member—I’m going to ask her to read her question again.

Hon Amy Adams: How is this Government helping the economy to transition to being more productive when Statistics New Zealand figures released just this morning show real per capita GDP growth is going backwards and is at its lowest level since September 2011?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The way that this Government is making the transition, as the member asked, is exactly what I’ve just spent three answers answering—that we are going to invest in the productive part of our economy, practically, through initiatives like the Provincial Growth Fund and the Green Investment Fund, rather than the previous Government relying on people selling houses to one another and the population growing.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, does he agree that GDP per capita growth is what matters most for achieving higher material living standards and that falling GDP per capita is showing that New Zealanders were working harder and harder for less, with both of those statements having been made by Grant Robertson?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: And what a sensible member Grant Robertson, Opposition MP, was. What I would say to that member is GDP per capita will increase once we move to a more sustainable, more productive, and inclusive economy. I would also suggest to the finance spokesperson for the Opposition that she perhaps listen to her predecessor, who said that it was unwise to look at quarterly numbers because they go both up and down.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I seek to clarify a previous discussion that we had, if I may.

SPEAKER: You seek to make a personal explanation in order to correct a previous statement.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you, sir—

SPEAKER: Sorry—first of all, is there any objection? There is none.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The first part that I said had been quoted in the newsletter had not. It is what the editor maintains Mr Wood had said to her. The second part that was in quotes was. I made an error, and I apologise for it.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—Te Ārai Development

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the purpose of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): There are three main purposes. The first is to ban foreign buyers of existing New Zealand homes; the second is to bring forestry registration rights into the overseas investment screening regime to ensure they’re treated similarly to existing screening for freehold and leasehold forests, whilst at the same time streamlining screening for forestry to encourage foreign direct investment in the forestry sector; and the third and equally important purpose is to preserve policy space for future Governments to protect the rights of New Zealanders to own their own land. This policy space would, in practice, have been lost for ever had this Government not acted to do these things before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) comes into effect.

Hon Amy Adams: Was it the policy intent of the bill for developers of multimillion-dollar homes targeted at foreign buyers, such as the Te Ārai property development, to be exempt?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No. The transitional exemption that was put forward but has been ruled out of order was put forward with the intent of helping the iwi who had suffered long delays on the project. It was a time-limited, transitional measure. There was advice from Treasury that this was procedurally appropriate to allow an exemption. However, the Speaker has advised that the select committee’s recommendation is not within the Standing Orders. The Government accepts the Speaker’s ruling, and therefore the transitional exemption will not proceed.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, is it his intention to promulgate regulations under the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill to exempt the Te Ārai development, or any other development linked to John Darby, from the provisions of that legislation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and, indeed, the other regulation-making power in the bill—and the member will know this because she was on the select committee—would not allow such an exemption.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: under this visionary and responsible policy, what proportion of New Zealand homes will no longer be able to be purchased by a foreign buyer outbidding a New Zealander?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There are currently 1.8 million homes in New Zealand, and more than 20,000 new homes will be built over the next year. Under this law, foreigners cannot buy any of the 1.8 million existing homes and can only purchase a fraction of the 20,000 new homes that would be built and would then have to either onsell them or lease them to New Zealanders. The bill as reported back from select committee ensures that more than 99 percent of New Zealand homes will not be able to be sold to foreigners.

David Seymour: Was the bill’s process subject to any time pressure due to the need to pass it before the CPTPP is ratified?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.

David Seymour: Is that why it’s such a dog’s breakfast of inconsistent amendments now?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It isn’t. It’s actually quite a complex bill. We don’t want to in Auckland stop some foreign direct investment in multi-storey apartment buildings that are going to be onsold or leased. That is probably the most important change that has been made at select committee, but it remains true that a foreigner will not be able to buy any existing home in New Zealand, and, as I said, more than 99 percent of New Zealand homes will not be open to purchase.

Hon Amy Adams: Since becoming the Minister responsible for the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, has he had any discussions about the bill and the proposed Te Ārai development exemption with the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Michael Wood; and if so, when?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Obviously on a number of occasions, but I do that with every bill that I’m responsible for.

Hon Amy Adams: Since becoming a Minister has he met, corresponded with, spoken to, or texted John Darby or Ric Kayne, as the beneficial owners of the Te Ārai development, or any representative of their business interests; and if so, for what purpose?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No. I know thousands of people in New Zealand, including Mr Darby. I have bumped into him probably once or twice in the last decade. The last time I can recall talking to him was when I bumped into him, and it’s so long ago I can’t remember when it was.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, since becoming a Minister, has he met, corresponded with, spoken to, or texted any representative of John Darby and Ric Kayne’s lobbying firm Thompson Lewis; and if so, for what purpose?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Everyone in the House will know that GJ Thompson actually was the acting chief of staff here, so I’ve regularly spoken with him—unfortunately for the member, not about this issue. Someone made me aware that Mr Lewis had some involvement in this. I have not spoken to Mr Lewis about this at all, nor corresponded with him. The two meetings that I can recall having with Mr Lewis since we were elected were in respect of carbon rights and forestry, and members of staff were present at those meetings to witness them, as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that notwithstanding his proximity and the Government’s proximity to Mr Thompson, this is evidence that the Government is not corruptible on this matter and would somewhat suggest that Mr Thompson was far more successful with the previous Government?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to allow the Minister to answer the question. I am going to deduct two supplementary questions from the Opposition for the interjections from the acting shadow Leader of the House and the finance spokesperson.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Accepting that punishment, I should have perhaps taken the point of order quickly in order to—rather than try and draw your attention to what I think is a breach of the Standing Orders. It is certainly out of order in this House to suggest that something infers corruption. I would suggest that the opposite also applies—that a question can’t contain a suggestion that something lacks corruption or corruptibility.

SPEAKER: Well, I totally disagree with the member. I think that the first part of the question was certainly in order. The second part wasn’t. I was waiting to see if the Acting Prime Minister could use—what he sometimes does—his deft skills to bring things which are apparently out of order into order. He didn’t and therefore I ruled out the second part.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not challenging; I just want to explain why I raised it in the way that I did. The inference is not in the way the Acting Prime Minister asked the question; it was in the fact that it inferred that the Hon Amy Adams could have inferred it in her questions.

SPEAKER: It couldn’t infer anything. It might have implied something; you inferred it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The involvement of either Mr Thompson or Mr Lewis in this had no effect on my decision. The advice we had received from Treasury to the select committee, based on public submissions that were heard by all, was that this was an iwi-based development that had suffered interminable delays, and we had some sympathy for their position—

Hon Amy Adams: Iwi-based?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, that is as it was described to me, Amy Adams, and the paper trail will show that. The paper trail will show that. We had some sympathy for that position, and so we were willing to agree to a transitional provision. We wanted it to be tight because we didn’t want there to be exemptions up and down the land, which is why the other regulation-making power is narrow, so that if future Governments want to unwind the ban on foreign buyers, they’re going to have to do it by primary legislation and not sneak it through by ministerial discretion.

Justice, Minister—Statements on Indecent Assault of Corrections Officer

4. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in answer to Oral Question No 8 on Tuesday that “The member is alluding to the offender I referred to in a question last week, relating to the pinching of a prison officer’s bottom”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I stand by all statements in the totality of the issue that that member is referring to, which also included statements that this particular offending was offensive, unwelcome, and totally unacceptable, and I also stand by my statements to the effect that the consequence of that offending should not have been seven years’ jail without parole.

Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister made that statement, had he read the sentencing note in relation to the indecent assault offence?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I had not. I relied on reports in the New Zealand Herald about the nature of that offending. And I go back to the point that I have been very clear and my track record on issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence is very clear, and I take no moral lesson from that member and his party, who had a Minister of Justice who, when he had the opportunity to let the Law Commission do its work on changing the nature of trials for sexual offending so they did not traumatise victims and re-victimise victims, told the Law Commission to stop doing its work.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Minister commenting on and characterising an indecent assault on a female corrections officer, when he hasn’t even read the sentencing notes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is completely wrong, because the issue was all about the consequences of that particular offending. In that particular case, the offender was convicted, the offender was sentenced, but it was circumstances in which that offender was facing seven years’ jail without parole. This Government is not going to have and continue that party’s promotion of American-style justice, with over-the-top, disproportionate sentencing.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he acknowledge that the victim in fact had her buttock grabbed hard and held by the offender, and when she tried to get away the offender followed her and grabbed a gate to prevent her from leaving, which left her, in her own words, feeling totally degraded, vulnerable, and uneasy when performing her work duties?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I accept what that member says, and it would be nice if that member and his colleagues had said more when they had a leader who molested a hospitality worker repeatedly by pulling her hair.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The suffix to that answer is entirely out of order and it should have been brought to account very quickly. He had no ministerial responsibility for that, not even in his capacity or in the time frame.

SPEAKER: Well, I think a very serious accusation was being levelled at this Minister, and I think what he was trying to do was contrast approaches. This is generally a robust Chamber. That was a very robust questioning line from the Hon Mark Mitchell, and I think that the response, while it went right up to the edge and was unusual, was not out of order.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order—

SPEAKER: No. Well, I’ll give the member another go, but I don’t want him to relitigate my ruling.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’m not going to, but I am going to suggest that it is a slippery slope to the bottom if, rather than rejecting or refuting the question, we get into some sort of tit-for-tat “Who was worse at what?” Regardless of the merits of the answer, I would suggest that that is going to cause disorder in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, I agree with the member, and I don’t want that situation to occur, but when a Minister’s values are being questioned, as they were, then one can expect a robust response.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify: that question wasn’t laying any criticism; it was asking if he acknowledged what actually happened to the victim in that case.

SPEAKER: It was part of a series of questions which were robust.

Hon David Bennett: Oh, my God!

SPEAKER: David Bennett, was that you?

Hon David Bennett: Yes.

SPEAKER: Stand up, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he understand the words and characterisation that he chose to use in relation to an indecent assault on a female corrections officer has sent an appalling message to prison inmates and may have increased the risk, particularly for female corrections officers, in their own workplace?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t accept that member’s characterisation of the consequences of what I have said. I have been very clear about my attitude towards, and actions on, issues involving sexual harassment and sexual violence, which is a step way better than members opposite.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Will he apologise to the growing number of women who are deeply offended and feel his characterisation of an indecent assault against a female corrections officer as New Zealand’s justice Minister is totally inappropriate?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since nothing I said conveyed that meaning, I think the most important thing is actually for members opposite, who allowed their Minister of Justice to stop the Law Commission doing work that would have made trials on sexual offences a lot better for victims of sexual violence—she stopped it in its tracks. That was wrong.

Greater Christchurch Regeneration—Symposium on Lessons From Canterbury Earthquake Sequence

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): What announcements has she made about learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence to help New Zealanders prepare for the future?

SPEAKER: Before the Minister answers, who made that interjection? [Interruption] Sorry, we have two, including a Minister, I understand, wanting to answer a question fairly soon. I think both sides of the House need to know we’ve moved on to the next question. We might be returning to the issue soon, but in the interests of the Minister who is to answer the question, the question should be asked without interjection. Dr Webb, ask it again.

5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What announcements has she made about learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence to help New Zealanders prepare for the future?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I’m delighted to share that, in partnership with the Christchurch City Council, a symposium has been scheduled for 29 and 30 November this year. A series of workshops will also be held in the build-up to the event. Around 250 people are expected to attend the symposium, including people from a range of experience and expertise: community and voluntary groups, the public and private sector, as well as academics. I’m thrilled to see this Government committed to delivering this event—something the previous Government was not able to do.

Dr Duncan Webb: What topics can she expect the symposium and workshops to cover?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While the content of the symposium is still being developed, I can announce that the preceding four-part workshop series is currently being organised on the themes of social and psychosocial recovery, recovery leadership and governance, procurement delivery models, and supporting business recovery. The Canterbury earthquake sequence affected every part of Cantabrians’ lives and had deep psychological impacts. I’m pleased to see a range of topics that have been identified and will be discussed.

Dr Duncan Webb: How does the symposium fit with the Government’s wider programme of work to advance the recovery of Christchurch?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m pleased to say that there is a cohesive programme of work under way to ensure the voices of people affected by the earthquakes are heard. These include extending the funding for the Residential Advisory Service, free and independent advice to homeowners who are experiencing conflict with insurers, including the Earthquake Commission (EQC); introducing a bill into Parliament which proposed common-sense legislative amendments to the Act, including increasing the EQC building cap, removing cover for contents, clarifying EQC’s ability to share information, and extending the time frame EQC can accept claims; appointing an independent ministerial adviser, whose recommendations EQC is implementing, including increasing the number of settlement teams in the Christchurch business unit working to settle Canterbury earthquake claims. We’ve also recently announced that the Government is launching a public inquiry into EQC, as well as a special insurance tribunal to resolve outstanding earthquake and insurance claims. Budget 2018—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, there’s such a long list.

SPEAKER: And the Minister’s finished for today. Thank you.

Question time interrupted.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to make a minor correction to the Business Statement that I delivered to the House.

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Apparently, in the Business Statement I said that Wednesday, the 28th would be a members’ day. Of course members with a calendar will know that Wednesday, the 27th next week will be a members’ day.

SPEAKER: That’s a problem that Ministers have when they prepare Business Statements under urgency.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Women—Workplace Sexual Assault

6. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Women: Is it her responsibility to stand up for and improve the outcomes for women in New Zealand?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, absolutely.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still think that “Many women have had unsafe experiences in the workplace. This needs to stop.”; and, if so, does she consider the grabbing of a woman’s buttock in her place of work to be an indecent assault?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In response to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Minister agree that an indecent assault—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. I am going to ask the member to ask the question again.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Do I have to answer both parts?

SPEAKER: I know there were two parts. They were very clear and it is something which is very important.

Hon Paula Bennett: My first supplementary: does she still think that “Many women have had unsafe experiences in the workplace. This needs to stop.”; and, if so, does she consider the grabbing of a woman’s buttock in her place of work an indecent assault?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, I do consider it a very serious issue. Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace or anywhere else is serious, and that’s why this Government is taking significant steps like having a cross-ministerial working group on sexual harassment and assault, which is being led by my colleague the under-secretary for sexual and domestic violence, Jan Logie. That’s why we’ve asked the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to improve—in fact, start for the first time collecting data on sexual harassment in the workplace. And it’s very important that we do everything possible to ensure survivors of sexual and indecent assault are able to come forward and encouraged to come forward and make complaints.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe it is trivialising sexual assault in the workplace when the Minister of Justice calls a woman at work who is grabbed on the buttock, then followed and intimidated, as merely a “pinch on the bottom”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I agree with the Minister of Justice when he said that indecent assault, including—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I am going to ask for this answer to be heard in silence. This is an important issue, and I think that having someone shouted down while they are giving an answer to it is inappropriate. The rest of this series of supplementary questions will be heard in silence. Start again, please.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As the Minister of Justice has said today and on previous days, indecent assault, including the case that the member is referring to, is insidious and unacceptable. I agree with him.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe it is trivialising sexual assault in the workplace when the Minister of Justice calls a woman at work who is grabbed on the buttock, then followed and intimidated, as merely a, to quote him, “pinch on the bottom.”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I agree with the Minister of Justice when he said that indecent assault, including the case the member is referring to, is insidious and unacceptable.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she still think that “the more people know about the scale of the problem, the more we can do to address it.”; and, if so, does she think describing an indecent assault in the workplace as a low-level offence helps or hinders understanding of the scale of the problem that New Zealand workplaces have with sexual misconduct?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is absolutely the case that there is a problem with under-reporting of cases of sexual assault and indecent assault, and disproportionate sentences of seven years without parole under the three-strikes law make it harder for survivors to come forward and harder to convict people of assault.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think that trichophilia, which is an obsession with female hair, should also be an offence?

SPEAKER: Not an area for responsibility.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she speak to the Minister of Justice about his appalling comments trivialising sexual assault in the workplace and ask him to publicly apologise to the hundreds, if not thousands, of women who feel hurt and stigmatised by his antiquated describing of “a pinch on the bottom” comments?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I’ve said earlier to this member, I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says indecent assault, including the case the member is referring to, is insidious and unacceptable. I believe that the Minister is doing very good work, including working very closely with my colleague the under-secretary for domestic and sexual violence, and ensuring that women have greater access to the type of justice and the type of support that they need from this Government, and I won’t ask the Minister to apologise for raising issues with our broken criminal justice system.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she believe it’s acceptable for the Minister of Justice to refer to a sexual assault in the workplace that stigmatised and traumatised a woman at work as merely a pinch on the bottom?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I have every sympathy with the woman who experienced this at work. We take it very seriously and, like the Minister of Justice, I think that that case is insidious and unacceptable.

Families Package—Impact

7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Will low- and middle-income families be better off because of the Families Package; if so, how?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): People will be better off due to some of the changes already in place, including the accommodation supplement increases and the reinstatement of the independent earner tax credit as of 1 April this year. Further changes effective as of 1 July that will support New Zealanders to be better off include the introduction of the winter energy and Best Start payments; increasing the Working for Families tax credit and abatement thresholds; increasing paid parental leave; and increasing the rate of the orphans’ benefit, unsupported child’s benefit, and foster care allowance. An estimated 384,000 families with children will be made better off by an average of $75 per week because of this Government’s Families Package.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to say that that was a very extensive answer and I expect the supplementary answers, if there are any, to be short.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How do these changes work in practice?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are lots of scenarios that could be used to show how the thousands of families will be better off. Here is one. The changes mean that after 1 July 2018, a couple with a five-year-old and a newborn born after 1 July living in Nelson earning $58,000 a year would be better off by $123.24 per week due to the Working for Families and Best Start changes, even when taking into account that their 1 April 2018 granted accommodation supplement will decrease by $4 when the 1 July measures kick in; $123.24 extra a week would mean a lot to many New Zealand families.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has the Minister received feedback about the Families Package?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes—lots of positive feedback on a range of the measures in the Families Package. One person wrote in saying, “I wanted to sincerely thank you for the energy payment being made to my family members. This makes an enormous difference and relieves some worry from my mind about them not using heating to save money. It’s honestly incredible.” People are doing it tough but are starting to see a tangible—

SPEAKER: Order! I think we’ve got the general idea.

Transport—Fuel Tax Modelling and Projects

8. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements, actions, and legislative drafting instructions on matters to do with fuel taxes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I do, including my statement that “The Opposition is asking us simultaneously to have less revenue, run less debt, and spend more. The maths [of that] just don’t add up.” National needs to come clean on what Auckland transport projects they would cut.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did he consider the formal modelling carried out by the Ministry of Transport to assess the possible impact of price spreading prior to issuing drafting instructions for the regional fuel tax bill?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, we did consider the advice around price spreading, and this Government has made very clear its attitude on price spreading to the fuel companies. We’ve initiated changes to the Commerce Act, which will give the Commerce Commission more teeth to deal with anti-competitive behaviour. My colleague the Hon Megan Woods has called in BP to make very clear our attitude on anti-competitive behaviour. I’ve directed officials to monitor price spreading. I think that the fuel companies are in no doubt about our attitude to this.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did he read the formal modelling carried out by the ministry to assess the possible impacts of price spreading?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What advice did he receive on the ability of the National Land Transport Programme to fund the promised projects when he came into office?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was advised that the transport plan that I inherited contained $4.5 billion more spending than revenue, and an 8.2c a litre increase in petrol excise and road-user charges would be needed just to balance the books. That didn’t include the billions of dollars of unfunded expressways promised by the Opposition during the last election.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What projects does the regional fuel tax fund?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The regional fuel tax will lead to $4.3 billion worth of investment—$900 million for roading improvements and new roads, $750 million for the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative busway, $700 million for Mill Road and Penlink, $550 million for road safety, $400 million for electric trains, $340 million for walking and cycling, $330 million for bus improvements, and an additional $300 million for other public transport infrastructure. Without the regional fuel tax, there would be no money for these projects.

Jami-Lee Ross: How does he reconcile his answers this afternoon that he, firstly, considered the modelling done on possible price spreading, and read the modelling on possible price spreading, when the answer given to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for the Estimates, to the question, “What modelling has been done on the possible impact of price spreading as a result of regional fuel taxes?”, was “No formal modelling has been carried out.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’ll have to go back and check the answer to that Estimates question. But my answer to the earlier question stands: there was advice on price spreading, I read it, and we subsequently made the decision to move ahead with the bill.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is he in the habit of stating in the House that he has read advice on an issue, when answers that—I’ve checked with the Clerk’s Office—were provided by him to the select committee say no formal modelling was carried out? How can he say he read something but tell the select committee it didn’t exist?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I told the member I’ll go back and check the advice that was given to the select committee. But I’m telling him again that there was advice on price spreading as an issue. I read it, and we subsequently made the decision to move ahead with the bill.

Environment—OVERSEER Tool

9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Is the Government assisting the primary sector and regional councils in measuring nutrient use and greenhouse gas emissions; if so, how?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In Budget 2018, the coalition Government announced we will work together with the primary sector by boosting funding by $5 million over the next four years to improve the OVERSEER tool that helps measure nutrient use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will the increase in funding for OVERSEER improve farming practice?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Damien O’Connor, has emphasised, improved—

Hon Nathan Guy: He’s Agriculture. He’s Minister of Agriculture.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —land management priorities. As the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O’Connor, has emphasised, improved land management priorities are key to improving water quality. This funding opens up opportunities for farmers to utilise new technologies and techniques to improve water quality in our rivers and aquifers. The extra funding will enable quicker adoption of environmentally friendly and profitable farm practices, the inclusion of a wider range of land types and farming systems, and a more user-friendly interface for the software.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is the coalition Government backing practical, science-based tools such as OVERSEER?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Government wants to help farmers and growers, as well as councils, to manage their respective environmental responsibilities by improving land use so that we can clean up our rivers to enable young and old to swim in them safely.

Oranga Tamariki—Consultation with Iwi and Finding Caregivers

10. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her ministry’s policies and actions in finding caregivers for children in care?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I do support the ministry’s efforts to attract more caregivers. It is a priority area. Oranga Tamariki needs more caregivers, and there is a lot of work to both recruit and retain a diverse pool of caregivers who can provide safe and loving homes for tamariki. Since its establishment a year ago, the number of family, whānau, and non-family/whānau caregivers has increased by more than 150.

If the member is referring to the caregiver advertisement that was placed on TradeMe, it has been recognised and acknowledged that the level of information contained within the advert, while not breaching the individual’s privacy, was an error in judgment. The chief executive has apologised. I know the staff are disappointed that they did not recognise this before posting the advert, and I am confident it will not be repeated.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: How does the Minister then reconcile her ministry’s reported statement yesterday that it worked hard for three months to try and find the girl a home within her whānau, iwi, or hapū, when Ngāti Ruanui head, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, said, “We are constantly being told, as iwi, to be part of the solution, but it’s bloody hard when they don’t engage with us.”, or iwi leader Marty Davis: “Just talk to us in the first instance and there are a number of things we can do when we actually talk with each other.”?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: My understanding from the chief executive is that conversations had been taking place with members of that particular iwi over the last three months. It would appear that there were other members of the iwi that had not been part of that conversation—we will seek to rectify that immediately.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: How does the Minister reconcile the comments from the CEO about a TradeMe advertisement for a foster family that “we acted immediately to take down [that] information.”, when two of the iwi leaders said that Oranga Tamariki did not remove the advertisement for at least 1½ days after the complaint was first laid?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member for the information. It had not been drawn to my attention before this moment. I will go and see if I can clarify the situation now that I have that information.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: How does the Minister reconcile her ministry’s comments by her CEO, who said, “We’ve now engaged with the appropriate iwi.”, when as of today and this afternoon neither iwi Ngā Rauru or Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi have been engaged at all?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member for his question. That is contrary to the information that I have been given. I will now take his comments back and I will seek to clarify.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: When her ministry’s CEO said, “We’ve now engaged with the appropriate iwi, which is fantastic. That’s going to create more opportunities for children that we didn’t have before we made the mistake.”, does she believe that making mistakes is the ideal way to create more opportunities for children?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member for his question. Oranga Tamariki was set up under the previous Government, and quite rightly so—and quite rightly so. It was set up to change the way we dealt with the complex situations for New Zealand’s children. Part of that is changing the way that we did things from how we did them before. Sometimes, mistakes will happen. This is one of those mistakes. It will be rectified, but Oranga Tamariki must change the way that we look after our children and our young people in this country because if we keep doing what we did before, we will keep getting the negative outcomes we got before.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Will the Minister, then, change the way and the appropriateness of operating, and herself as the Minister taking leadership, to contact the iwi leaders such as Marty Davis, who in his comments says, “The TradeMe site, by its very name, suggests a commodity as being sold, bought, or swapped. Some may see that with this little child.”—will she take leadership, contact them, apologise personally for the mistake that was made?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member for his question. Can I just clarify that this is not the first time that TradeMe has been used and the job section of TradeMe has been used. It is a practice that actually started under the previous administration. However, to go to the substance of the member’s question, I have no difficulty whatsoever ringing the iwi in particular, having a conversation about how myself and the ministry can create stronger relationships for the better outcomes for the children and the young people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Office of Ethnic Communities—Premises

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note the Minister is not in the House and I seek leave for the question to be deferred until the Minister is present, next Tuesday.

SPEAKER: OK, and I want some clarification. Is the member trying for an extra question, or just holding it back.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Just transferring the question.

SPEAKER: And the member wants an extra question when the Minister’s next here. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: Are the statements in the Onehunga Community News that “The Office of Ethnic Communities is moving into premises in Onehunga, which will be shared with list MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan.” and the quote by her parliamentary under-secretary saying, “We’ve boosted support that we’re providing in terms of connecting with ethnic communities, so we have more staff members working in our ethnic communities’ outreach teams.”, correct?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister for Ethnic Communities: On behalf of the Minister for Ethnic Communities, in answer to the first quotation the member has used, no. In answer to the second quotation that the member used in his question, I have no ministerial responsibility for Parliamentary Service’s funded staff or the comments that MPs make about them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the parliamentary under-secretary tell the Onehunga Community News that the new premises included the Office of Ethnic Communities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m advised no.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Government claim that the Onehunga Community News report is the fault of the publication, when the editor has stated that no correction will be made to the story, as it is consistent with her recording of the interview with her parliamentary under-secretary and Government colleagues, or is the Government saying that the editor is being untruthful?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not saying that the editor is being untruthful. I am saying that the editor has confused two different issues. There are Parliamentary Service staff employed under the Labour Party Parliamentary Service’s allocation, for which I have no ministerial responsibility, who are doing ethnic community outreach, who are in that office. There are no staff from the Office of Ethnic Communities working in that office. That would be inappropriate. Nor has there been any suggestion that there would be staff from the core Public Service working in that office.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, if the parliamentary under-secretary had no intention to mislead that there was anything other than Parliamentary Service staff, did the parliamentary under-secretary specifically promote the Office of Ethnic Affairs and the provision of funds in the Budget for expanding the staff of the Office of Ethnic Affairs at those premises?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion in the member’s question. I have the article in front of me, and it is abundantly clear from reading the direct quotes of the member of Parliament who has made them that he was speaking of Parliamentary Service staff and not staff of the Office of Ethnic Communities.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will she ensure that the parliamentary under-secretary Michael Wood respects the political neutrality of the Office of Ethnic Communities and stops using the role to promote the Labour Party?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite the numerous denials from this Government, that member is now making a very serious allegation, and he cannot substantiate it, and there’s a more appropriate place if he thinks that’s right.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No. I don’t need any further help with this one. I don’t think, in my listening to the question, the member had suggested that Mr Wood had acted inappropriately. I think the request was: did he not? So Chris Hipkins can answer the question.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have received no evidence to suggest that he has done so.

Trade Agreements—Negotiations with European Union

12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade with the European Union?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Today, the Government officially launched negotiations for a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström. The EU is already the third largest trading partner with two-way trade worth more than $20 billion. A free-trade agreement will increase trade substantially, bringing significant economic gains for New Zealand and the European Union. Wages, business profits, and the New Zealand standard of living will rise. Perhaps as importantly, it’s critical to our interests that New Zealand works together with like-minded countries to combat the rising tide of protectionism around the world, and that’s what this coalition Government is doing.

Mark Patterson: How has the coalition Government got trade negotiations with the EU started?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This coalition Government has, for a start, worked to rebuild public support and confidence in trade needed at home after the past Government abandoned bipartisanship. The Prime Minister deserves significant credit, particularly in respect of land sales, actually. The Prime Minister deserves significant credit for getting the negotiations across the line by advocating strongly for New Zealand’s interest in her meetings with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel. European leaders were, clearly, receptive to our leader articulating the values that New Zealand shares with the EU. We’re fortunate to have a Prime Minister who represents New Zealand so effectively on the world stage.

Mark Patterson: How will a potential EU - New Zealand FTA benefit New Zealand’s environment, economy, and workers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We expect a high-quality agreement which will give greater market access for New Zealand’s exports, both goods and services—

Hon David Bennett: Except dairy and beef.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and that it’ll include—he says except dairy and beef. Well, let’s just wait and see, Mr Bennett. We might do better than your hapless crowd on that side. The EU itself forecasts the agreement could add $2 billion a year to the New Zealand economy—or billions a year to the economy—and increase wages for New Zealand workers. The launch of these negotiations with the European Union is yet another example of this coalition Government building the foundations for a sustainable, fair, high-wage, high-value economy

Bills

Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

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

E Te Kaiwhakarite o Te Whare tēnā koe, e ngā hoa mema tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou Tākitimu waka, e ngā uri o Heretaunga Tamatea, rau rangatira mā. Tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, greetings to my parliamentary colleagues, greetings to Tākitimu waka, descendants of Heretaunga Tamatea, and distinguished guests. I bid you a warm welcome, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.]

I turn first to express my warm greetings to the people of Heretaunga Tamatea. Thank you to those of you who have travelled from your rohe and from other parts of the motu to be here today to support the third reading. I welcome you. This is a very significant day for Heretaunga Tamatea and the Crown, and I am pleased that so many people are here to witness it. It is a privilege for me to stand in this House today in the final stages of our settlement process and to commend this bill to my colleagues.

This reading marks the final moments in the long journey towards settlement for Heretaunga Tamatea. I’d like to pay special respect to the Heretaunga Tamatea negotiators, especially Liz Munroe, David Tīpene Leach, Peter Paku, and Brian Morris. There can be few heavier responsibilities than negotiating a settlement that seeks to address historical grievances that your people have borne for generations, yet you have met that responsibility with integrity, determination, and considerable grace. At all times you have been guided not only by the wishes and aspirations of your people but by the principles of cooperation, good faith, and trust that the Treaty of Waitangi embodies.

I also recognise that your hard work is but a continuation of the efforts of your ancestors, who have, since at least the 1850s, pursued justice for Crown failings that have, unfortunately, characterised our relationship almost from the beginning. While the Crown deeply regrets that it has taken so long to address your historical grievances in an appropriate way, we join with you today in remembering and honouring the many Heretaunga Tamatea people who have struggled for justice. Today is the culmination of those efforts.

I also acknowledge the Crown officials, who have also worked very hard to achieve this settlement, and, of course, naturally, I acknowledge the mahi and the stewardship of my predecessor, Chris Finlayson, who did so much to bring so many Treaty settlements to a just conclusion, including this one.

It’s important that we acknowledge the troubled history that makes this settlement necessary. From the time of their first interactions with European settlers in the early 1840s, the people of Heretaunga Tamatea were keen to embrace the opportunities that the new arrivals brought. By the end of the decade, the people of Heretaunga Tamatea were growing and trading pork, flax, maize, and other agricultural produce with Europeans and were taking advantage of new employment opportunities, particularly in the whaling industry. Initially, Māori in the area chose to lease land to settlers so they could encourage economic development without losing ownership of the land, but, in the late 1840s, some expressed a willingness to sell some land to the Crown to further encourage settlement.

Initially, the first Crown purchase was a model for how the Crown should have conducted its land purchases. For almost a year, Crown officials met with local chiefs, discussed boundaries, and negotiated prices. A broad consensus was reached. However, the night before the Waipukurau deed was signed, things began to go wrong. In a private meeting, the chief Crown purchase agent told a prominent local chief that he would only pay the agreed price if more than 20,000 more acres were added to the purchase. The owners of that land were not consulted, and six weeks later the deed map was redrawn, permanently depriving the owners of the land they had occupied for centuries.

Unfortunately, this established a pattern that characterised Crown purchasing for the next 10 years. Crown agents bought land without consulting all the owners and signed deeds for huge areas of Hawke’s Bay and Wellington, sometimes with just a single Māori signatory. Rangatira in Heretaunga Tamatea increasingly opposed further sales, only for Crown agents to note that the growing tensions between chiefs were leading to further sales. By 1857, just six years after the first Crown purchase in Heretaunga Tamatea, about half of all the land in the rohe was gone. At the end of that year, tensions over Crown sales erupted into armed conflict between hapū, resulting in seven deaths and a number of injuries. In the wake of this conflict, the people of Heretaunga Tamatea made a commitment to political rather than armed opposition. From that time, Heretaunga Tamatea leaders were prominent in a number of local and nationwide movements that sought to halt further land loss and retain a measure of political autonomy, including Te Whata a Te Herunga, the Rūnanga, the Komiti or Repudiation movement, and Kotahitanga, which led to the first Pāremata, or Māori Parliament, sitting at Waipatu, near modern Hastings, in 1892.

These movements illustrate Heretaunga Tamatea’s longstanding commitment as Treaty partners and their dedication to peaceful political organisation. However, these efforts were undercut by the Crown’s introduction of native land laws, which individualised landownership and led to further sales. By 1930, the people of Heretaunga Tamatea were a tangata without a w’enua. In the span of a single lifetime, your people had become landless, marginalised, and impoverished. Between 1851 and 1854, the Crown purchased 7,200 acres of Aorangi lands; an unreasonably small amount of compensation was provided for this in 1950, almost a century later. This has since been addressed but has caused continuous distress for Aorangi. I acknowledge the Aorangi Māori Trust Board for agreeing to have their claims settled as part of Heretaunga Tamatea.

It’s impossible to overstate the devastating impact Crown purchasing practice had on the economic, social, cultural, and spiritual condition of the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea. However, it is possible to begin to understand how it happened, and I encourage every New Zealander to read the historical account that is included in the Heretaunga Tamatea deed of settlement, which sets out this history in more detail. It is a sobering document, but like all other historical accounts, it has an important role to play in helping us all to better understand this country’s past and to understand its present. The bill we are voting on today also includes the Crown’s formal acknowledgements of its historical Treaty breaches and its apology to the people of Heretaunga Tamatea, past and present.

The path to this settlement has been over eight years. In 2011, He Toa Takitini gained the mandate to represent Heretaunga Tamatea in the settlement process, and the terms of negotiation were signed. The agreement in principle was signed in 2014, and the deed of settlement was signed in September 2015 at Te Aute College. To date, this settlement is the fifth-largest in New Zealand’s history. While the settlement is substantial, I acknowledge that no redress can ever fully compensate the people of Heretaunga Tamatea for what has been lost and for what they have suffered. However, the settlement given effect to by this bill will provide Heretaunga Tamatea with a powerful platform for future growth: $100 million in financial and commercial redress will help Heretaunga Tamatea to again become key participants in the Hawke’s Bay region’s economy, and a further $5 million will support the long-term sustainability of Te Aute College.

The Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust has proposed that $1.1 million be distributed to each of the 23 marae in the Heretaunga Tamatea rohe, which will provide immediate benefit to marae and hapū around the region. This illustrates the dedication of Heretaunga Tamatea to sustainable development and collaborative decision-making across their whole community. The settlement package includes five significant site vestings to reconnect Heretaunga Tamatea with lands of cultural significance. Additionally, there was the gift and then the gift-back to the people of New Zealand of Cape Kidnappers Gannet Reserve and Cape Kidnappers nature reserve. These gift-backs at Cape Kidnappers provide an insight to the mana of Heretaunga Tamatea and the spirit of the negotiations throughout their settlement process.

Today is a day of new beginnings in many respects, and today signifies an important moment—an historic moment—for Heretaunga Tamatea and the Crown. We draw on our history; we reconcile ourselves to it. Through this, we make peace and we gain strength. Today, we take the final step toward a new beginning, a new relationship built on mutual respect, trust, cooperation, and partnership. I wish Heretaunga Tamatea and the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust all the best as you succeed in continuing this process. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): On behalf of the National Opposition, I indicate that we will be supporting this legislation with great pleasure. It was tremendous to be at Te Aute College on 26 September 2015 to sign the deed of settlement, and I welcome to the gallery today some representatives of Te Aute College, about which I’ll say something in a short time. It’s a great college, almost as great as Hato Pāora. My gym instructor, who’s an old boy of Hato Pāora, asked me to drop that into my speech and I have obliged.

There are a couple of points I want to make. The first is to emphasise what the Minister said about how important it is for people to read the facts. The facts are set out in the bill and form an important part of the apology, because what happened here, it wasn’t raupatu but it was a very serious breach of the Treaty, and huge tracts of land across the magnificent Heretaunga Plains were lost. That is why this settlement is such a significant settlement, and that’s why the Crown really has to do its very best to make sure, in a post-settlement world, that this settlement is successful.

Can I acknowledge, as the Minister has, the tremendous contribution of the negotiators. Time and time again, I have said in this House that to be a negotiator on behalf of an iwi in its Treaty settlement negotiations requires huge courage and commitment, and that was certainly the case here, because the negotiators are people who work on their day job and then at the end of the day, instead of going home and resting, are called to meetings to deal with the negotiations, and that applies also over the weekend. The young folk here who are witnessing this third reading should take some time to thank people within the tribal leadership for their contribution to the negotiations, because what they did, as I said, has required great courage and commitment.

In any Treaty settlement, negotiators have to deal with important mandate issues. Because Heretaunga Tamatea was very well organised, mandate disputes here were minimal, but none the less they can be very trying and time-consuming pieces of work, and it can really be very testing for negotiators. So they had to deal with that, and they did it well.

Inevitably, there are going to be overlapping claims, and the negotiators dealt with those issues very well, and, above all, they have to recognise and accept that what is offered is something that’s bankable for the iwi. I always remember the final stages of the Ngāti Porou negotiation, when my old friend Apirana Mahuika got up at the crack of dawn and wandered around Wellington, wondering whether he would initial the deed of settlement. Was it an appropriate settlement—what would Ngāta have said about it? So those are the kinds of huge issues that weigh on the negotiators as they come to decide whether to accept the deed of settlement, and that is why to acknowledge the negotiators is not a formulaic recitation of thanks or a formulaic acknowledgment but a sincere tribute to them for their outstanding contribution.

The Minister finished his speech by saying—as I have said in the past—today marks the beginning of a new relationship, and he’s absolutely correct. But whether or not these settlements succeed is dependent on how the Crown reacts. Iwi and their members never forget, but the Crown all too often forgets, and so these settlements will be successful if the Crown acknowledges and acts on the basis that it is a new day, a new relationship—a relationship based on equals, not paternalism.

Earlier this week, I was asked a number of questions by journalists about a certain settlement where there are some issues that have arisen, and they said to me, “Should the Minister be taking a closer look at it?”, and so on. These are funds that were provided by the Government, and the questions themselves seemed to me to suggest that there’s still an understanding out there, or a feeling out there, that the relationship between the Crown and iwi is paternalistic. Well, it’s not.

When there’s a settlement, then the relationship does change. Iwi have the resources to grow and develop their area, and it’s not for the Crown to be adopting some kind of overlord or paternalistic relationship toward them.

So I always, when it comes to Treaty settlements in the third reading, cross my fingers and hope for the best that the Crown won’t let the side down. I’m always mindful—and the member for Te Tai Hauāuru knows this—of what happened with Ngāti Apa. They’d been told during negotiations with Michael Cullen that a certain piece of land was not available for settlement because it was a strategic piece of land, and then, a couple of years after the settlement, it was put on the market. That’s the kind of thing that destroys trust and it does need to be avoided at all times.

There are two points that the Māori Affairs Committee was concerned with and that I want to refer to. The first one deals with the Te Aute College Glasgow leases—something that I am very personally interested in, because I know the contribution that this great college has made to New Zealand—and those leases, to put it bluntly, are an abomination and there needs to be a resolution of them for the future.

This college has produced some outstanding people over the years. And just to go through a few of them: Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu, the soldier of the Māori Battalion who was awarded the Victoria Cross in 1943; the great Te Rangi Hīroa—Sir Peter Buck—who was a member of Parliament for Northern Māori; Sir Howard Morrison; Sir Sidney Mead; the great Sir Āpirana Ngata, a good Nat, who was the MP for Eastern Maori for many, many years, an outstanding Minister of Māori Affairs; Sir Māui Pōmare—[Interruption]—they hate it when we say these things. Sir Māui Pōmare, another great Nat who was the member for Western Maori and Minister of Health; Sir Pita Sharples, who wasn’t a great Nat but he was a great guy, and is a great guy and a person I worked with very closely when he was Minister of Māori Affairs and co-leader of the Māori Party. He’s the one who launched the reforms of Te Ture Whenua which the Labour Party has ditched, and shame on them. William Brown Turei, archbishop and primate of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa; Piri Weepu; Norm Hewitt—you’ve got to get the All Blacks in there—Manu Bennett; and so many others. This is a school that should be flourishing, and it’s not flourishing because of those hideous Glasgow leases. So I hope that over the next little period, we will, as a Parliament, be able to look at that issue, because it does need to be resolved.

And the second issue relates to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. There’ve been some concerns about that. Look, it’s early days, but I strongly say to all iwi who are involved with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee: get involved in it. It is going to take time to bed in. It was the subject of a very careful negotiation led by Dame Fran Wilde when she was negotiating the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement. It is the right model for the Hawke’s Bay. There are going to be teething problems because the new Jerusalem doesn’t arrive in five minutes, but it’s worth working hard on, and I am sure that if everyone does their bit that’s the model that will work very well for the Hawke’s Bay.

So, in conclusion, it’s been great to work with Heretaunga Tamatea over the years. They have got some wonderful, wonderful people who have been involved in the iwi for such a long time. The one person I particularly want to mention is Liz Munroe, who is a good friend of mine and she and I worked together in a law firm many years ago. With the kind of leadership that Heretaunga Tamatea has, I believe it’s going to go from strength to strength. And so I, too, commend the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tihewa mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama. E mihi ana ki te rangi, e mihi ana ki te whenua, e mihi ana ki ngā tāngata.

E ngā hapū maha o Heretaunga Tamatea, ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Kahungunu, nau mai, whakatau mai, nau mai whakatau mai ki te ana o te raiona ā ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei.

Harikoa te ngakau e whakatū ana au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, i tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru.

Ka huri too me mihi atu ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, ngā mate huhua o te wā, haere koutou, haere koutou.

Hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora pai nei tēnā koutou ōku whanaunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Chair. Life bursts forth through the dawn to the world of light. I greet the heavens, I greet the land, I greet the people.

To the many tribal groups of Heretaunga of Tamatea, to you my Ngāti Kahungunu relations, welcome, welcome to the lair of the lion; that is, to this House of Parliament which stands here.

I am thrilled to stand and support this bill on its third reading.

I must make mention too of those who have departed this world; to you I say farewell, farewell.

Coming back to us, to the land of the living, to my relations, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.]

I am truly delighted to stand and speak in support of this very important bill, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, at its third reading. I too would also like to add my welcome to our manuhiri tūārangi, to all our esteemed guests from Heretaunga Tamatea who’ve travelled from far and wide. It was wonderful to hear the kōrero in the Banquet Hall to welcome them to Parliament. This is truly a significant day, and it’s always an honour to speak on Treaty settlement bills, but this is significant—the fifth-largest settlement, among my whanaunga of Heretaunga Tamatea, Ngāti Pāhauwera, and Ngāti Kahungunu. So it’s always an honour to welcome whanaunga to the House of Parliament.

I know it’s been said in many other readings—and I acknowledge my tuahine Meka Whaitiri, the Minister and member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—in terms of the people of Heretaunga Tamatea, of the wonderful marae that they represent all throughout their takiwā. But I wanted to just take this opportunity, for the record of Hansard, to announce and to list all of the hapū that make up Heretaunga Tamatea. It hasn’t been done, and there’s quite a few, but I want to make sure that they’re all included in my kōrero today.

The first one starts off Ngāi Tahu ki Takapu—oh, Takapau, sorry. Not a good start. Let’s start again—let’s start again. Ngāi Tahu ki Takapau, Ngāi Tamaterā, Ngāi Te Ao, Ngāi Te Hauapu, Ngāi Te Hurihanga-i-te-rangi, Ngāi Te Kīkiri o Te Rangi, Ngāi Te Ōatua, Ngāi Te Rangikoianake te tuatahi, Ngāi Te Rangikoianake tuarua, Ngāi Te Rangitekahutia, Ngāi Te Rangitotohu, Ngāi Te Ūpokoiri, Ngāi Te Whatuiāpiti, Ngāi Toroiwaho, Ngāti Hāwea, Ngāti Hikatoa, Ngāti Hinemanu, Ngāti Hinemoa, Ngāti Hinetewai, Ngāti Hotoa, Ngāti Honomōkai, Ngāti Hōri, Ngāti Kautere, Ngāti Kere, Ngāti Kotahi, Ngāti Kurukuru, Ngati Mārau o Kahungunu, Ngāti Mahuika, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Mihiroa, Ngāti Ngarengare, Ngāti Papatuamāro, Ngāti Pīhere, Ngāti Pōporo, Ngāti Pukututu, Ngāti Rāhunga, Ngāti Takaroa (Ngāti Tākaro), Ngāti Tamatea, Ngāti Te Rehunga, Ngāti Toaharapaki, Ngāti Tukuaterangi, Ngāti Ura ki te Rangi, and Ngāti Whakaiti. Those are the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea, and we welcome you to Parliament today for this significant occasion.

Can I acknowledge the Minister, Minister Little; his predecessor, Minister Finlayson; the former chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tutehounuku Korako; and, I guess, I acknowledge myself, as the current chair. Ha, ha! Kia ora. I’ll take the opportunity. But I’d like to acknowledge all those who have been involved in this phase of this settlement. But, of course, we know that this stretches a long way back, further than our particular mahi. This goes all the way back to the signing of Te Tiriti, to the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea, who were thriving, independent hapū communities who wanted to engage with the Crown and who wanted to engage with the settlers, and who were, unfortunately, let down terribly. As we’ve heard in many settlements in this House, the dispossessions of land—I’m always saddened to hear the stories of that modus operandi of the Crown, the insatiable appetite for land.

They went to all sorts of devious means to devour those lands from our hapū, as Minister Little outlined in his speech, whether it was secretly adding on a whole chunk of additional acres—thousands of acres of land—to a deed without any consent, without any consultation; whether it was the passing of the Native Lands Act in the 1860s; whether it was breaking down the Māori tenure, our tenure of communal ownership, breaking it down into ten individual names and then, through all sorts of means, ensuring that that land was dispossessed, whether it was putting our whanaunga into debt, whether it be by survey titles and the like—all those sorts of means which were inflicted upon these people and which led to them having just a tiny fraction of their ancestral lands.

We know that this takiwā of Heretaunga Tamatea—some of the richest, most fertile soils. Anyone who drives through the Hawke’s Bay and admires it, from the mountains to the coast, all the way through, can see the abundance of wealth and prosperity that has been generated from those lands. Many of the descendants of these owners have worked hard to help the prosperity of that region, and now, finally, we can use this settlement as an opportunity for Heretaunga Tamatea to recapitalise themselves and to reassert and to engage more fully, whether it’s in Hawke’s Bay regional planning processes right across their ancestral landscape—whatever—in the commercial sphere, in the resource management, this settlement provides a platform for that.

I see that time is running short, but to conclude my speech I wanted to just acknowledge Mrs Tānira Te Au, who told the special kōrero about the haka “Tika Tonu” from Houngarea Marae. Heretaunga Tamatea, Kahungunu—famous for their waiata. Famous. I certainly hope we get to hear some of the top ten, and that haka, reverberate in this House at the conclusion of this debate, because this is certainly one of those occasions which is cause for celebration and remembrance, and we do both on this special, solemn occasion. So, without further ado, can I once again mihi to all of those who have led this, including all of your tūpuna who paved the way before, and can I wish Heretaunga Tamatea all the very best for the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana tātou katoatoa i te aroa maʻata o te Atua.

[Greetings everybody, in the name of the Lord.]

Ko au tangata no te Moana nui o Kiva no te moana, te ʻenua no Rarotonga, no Aitutaki, no Mangaia. Ko au e tu nei e tangata ki roto i teia are e tu nei te Paremata e tu tātou ki roto i teia ra.

[I am a man of the Pacific Ocean, of the ocean, the land of Rarotonga, of Aituaki, of Mangaia. I am man standing here in this House of Parliament we are all in today.]

There is a pe‘e [chant] from the islands of Aitutaki that goes something like this:

Taku manu nui taku manu raʻi,

Taku manu ka rere tau ʻitiʻiti ki runga ki Tokerau,

ʻOki mai ʻoki mai ʻoki mai.

[Oh big bird, oh little bird,

Birds who have flown to the four corners of the earth,

One day you shall return and when you do, tell us your song.

Tell us your words that you have to share.]

I am honoured to be here to be able to speak on this bill. The truth be told I think I was the only Māori-looking guy that was left on our side, had that opportunity, I was about to walk outside the House and was given the bill. The only time that actually I was in the Māori Affairs Committee was once when the Hon Tau Henare was the chairperson, the late Hon Parekura Horomia was in there, and many others.

I can remember it was very feisty, it was alive, it was engaging, and one of my Pākehā colleagues who was sitting next to me said, “Geez, is it like that all the time?” I said, “Well, that’s the way it rolls in the Māori Affairs Committee. You either go hard or you go home.” And at the end we had a karakia and we had kai. So if you really want a true experience there’s only one select committee to go to; that’s the Māori Affairs Committee.

To tatou tupuna i roto i teia are e tu nei [to our ancestors in this House standing here], I’m honoured to be able to be here. I have to say in the nearly seven years that I’ve been in this House this would have been the first time that I’ve been honoured to be able to speak on a Treaty claims bill. So here it is, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. Our old people often would say that nothing happens just by accident; sometimes things happen for a purpose. And so as I sat here starting to listen, I heard what the different kōrero and the different speeches were saying and I thought to myself, “So what is it that this boy from Rarotonga could actually comment on and contribute today?”

What happened is that in the kōrero when I heard the Hon Chris Finlayson talking about that and from Te Aute College—you see, I was just a State school boy from Henderson High School in West Auckland. The closest that we came was playing Hato Petera, which we won, Tipene, which we lost. We had many exchanges but we always heard of Te Aute College. They won the Moascar Cup. They’re actually well-known for their feats in that, but the name that stood out to me was the name of Sir Māui Pōmare. The reason for that is that because in the First World War it was Sir Māui Pōmare who actually came across to Rarotonga and it was through his kōrero and through his engagement that began the migration of over 500 Cook Island soldiers in World War I, who fought alongside the Māori Pioneer Battalion. So because of that I also realised that there is an importance to acknowledge the connection that we have as well.

The other connection that they have to Hastings and the Hawke’s Bay is that in our Cook Island communities up and down the motu [country] we would have a thing called the Uapou Fellowship, which is a gathering of all the churches. We would have services and cultural activities and from the Hawke’s Bay they always had a group, a very strong group, but they also had the best-looking girls that would often come, so that’s what they were also known for as well.

But more importantly, this is an opportunity for the Heretaunga Tamatea claim to put at rest a treaty settlement that has been long waited for. Here it is. It is a full redress. It is both an apology and a final settlement. I want to acknowledge all of the tūpuna who have gone before, those who have been the negotiators, those who have, unfortunately, not able to be here with all of us today, but would see that this is a day they wished and in their moemoeā and in their dreams had desired would come. And so it comes today to all of us for the betterment so that all people can move on as well.

When we think about the Treaty claims and the negotiations, I remember reading a piece where in 1840 when part of the translation happened with Henry Williams, he had to try and understand and translate into Māori and English and English into Māori what this relationship was meant to be about. They used the word “kāwanatanga”, which is about governorship, still retaining a sense of sovereignty. But there was another word that he used which was “kawenata”, which is about a covenant, and actually that’s what people understood—a covenant that binds parties in a permanent, moral, and irrevocable relationship. That’s what it understood. Unfortunately, it’s not what the reality was.

So today I think it’s important to go back to that place, to say that when it was first agreed to, when a covenant was signed, it was signed that there would be a permanent moral and irrevocable relationship. Today, I think it is the hope of everyone here that this redress will not only be an apology for what was done before to put the wrong right, but also create a settlement that in the days before previously in the signing of this Treaty settlement was to be able to ensure that the future of all our rangatahi, our tamariki, for the future generations, will continue to see the prosperity and success that we all desire as well.

So I bring these brief words. I actually then commend this to this House—this settlement. It is an important and appropriate way to be able to do that, that all of us are here to be able to celebrate and commemorate this. That then will be the beginning of a new future, a new future and a new hope as well. I want to acknowledge all of those who have gone before us in this time and for all that they have desired to achieve.

Kia orana e kia manuia.

[Greetings and best wishes.]

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour for me to rise and to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangaranga maha; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

[To each representative entity, to each spokesperson and delegate, greetings to one and all, indeed greetings to everyone assembled here.

May I acknowledge the descendants of Heretaunga, of Tamatea. I bid you a warm and sincere welcome. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.]

I would like to start off by acknowledging Heretaunga Tamatea and those who are not here in this House today that should be here with you, by your side: the claimants who have walked this path who are no longer here because they have passed away, because it took just too long to get here today, to this final reading. I acknowledge those people and the commitment and the contribution that they have made on this Treaty settlement journey on your behalf.

To all of those here today from all of the hapū that my fellow colleague Rino Tirikatene mentioned in number, thank you for being in the House today. It is a very significant day for you, and I would like to acknowledge you. To He Toa Takatini, the mandated body who negotiated your settlement—and I just really like your whakataukī, which says our strength is in our unity.

Also, I’d like to acknowledge the two Ministers: the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, as well as the Hon Chris Finlayson for the words that they have already said in this House today. Minister Little discussed the negotiators who negotiated with integrity and grace and the principles of cooperation and trust that were undertaken throughout the course of this negotiation. The Minister also outlined the historical time line of your grievances and how you become landless and marginalised and impoverished. I acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for the work he did at the beginning of this Treaty settlement path on your behalf. He said the Crown had seriously breached the Treaty with the loss of a large tract of land in Heretaunga and spoke of the great courage and the commitment from your negotiators, and I acknowledge the sincere tribute he made to them.

You know, it’s an honour for me. I’m a first-time member of Parliament and a brand new member of the Māori Affairs Committee. So, for me, this is my very first Treaty settlement final reading that I have made, and I am honoured to be here today. It is a privilege for me.

It was also a real privilege for me to travel to Hawke’s Bay to meet with you and to hear you with your hearings of evidence. There were 40 submissions on this bill and 33 of them were oral. We heard them in Hawke’s Bay, as well as in Wellington, and I was really impressed with your manaakitanga that you showed—how you enveloped us with your stories and how you immersed us with your waiata, your stories, and the photos you brought of your tīpuna, and how you laid out your whakapapa in front of us. I would like to thank you for that. I’m enriched because of this.

You painted us a history of your story. It was a history that I was not aware of until that time, and you laid out your mamae for us to see it, and for us to feel it as well, and so I thank you for that.

I’d just like to note a couple of the historical grievances. They are written in this bill, but it’s also to hear them—to hear them said out loud. There is power in words when we hear them out loud, so I’d like to acknowledge that by 1900, approximately 1.2 million acres of your land, out of the 1.4 million acres of Heretaunga Tamatea land, had passed from Māori ownership through to Crown ownership. In the early 20th century, the Crown continued to purchase Māori-owned land in Heretaunga Tamatea, so that by 1930, approximately only 6 percent remained. By 1930, the whānau and hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea were virtually landless.

There is an apology that goes with this settlement bill, and I’d just like to read a small part of it: “The Crown unreservedly apologises for its repeated breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, and for the ‘ngā mamae me ngā tūkino’ ”—the pain and the damage. The Crown regrets what it did, how it contributed to the whānau and hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea being left virtually landless. In the 1850s, the Crown used secret transactions and other divisive tactics to purchase huge areas of Heretaunga Tamatea land. The Crown is deeply sorry for its purchasing tactics that created tensions among your people that culminated in war, injury, and, ultimately, death.

At the end of our hearings day in Havelock, I went back to stay in Napier for the evening. I decided it was a good opportunity to spend time in your rohe, but it was almost like walking through sliding doors of a parallel reality because it was the Art Deco weekend in Napier. I had been spending time with you, hearing your stories, hearing about your past and your grievances, and then I went to Napier and there was this celebration of the 1930s. Fox furs and boaters, ostrich feathers, vintage cars, and The Great Gatsby swagger were in full swing in Napier, and I couldn’t rectify within myself the feeling of stepping from one world into another. So contrasting was it that I was not able to look upon that Art Deco Festival and feel anything of pride about it, because it was at that same time that you lost your land and became landless.

Just briefly mentioning the deed of settlement being signed at Te Aute College, and I won’t go into great detail about that because it has been mentioned by other speakers already. But I do note that that $5 million will ensure the long-term sustainability of the school, and that is something to celebrate.

But now is a time and an opportunity to look forward—to look to the future. We acknowledge our past, and we can learn from it.

Ki te kāhore he whakakitetanga ka ngaro te iwi.

[Without foresight or vision, the people will be lost.]

I’d just like to talk a little bit about my whānau connection to Hakikino. A few years ago, it was the Kershaw whānau reunion. My sister is now married into the Winiana whānau, and they were having the reunion at the Waimārama marae. Now at Hakikino, they have developed a really great little tourist venture. It’s called the Walk with the Ancestors Tour, and I think this is a fantastic opportunity to keep holding on to your stories. One of the things I heard in the hearings was that when you lose your land, you lose your stories. But it is time to reclaim your stories back.

So, my whānau—my brother-in-law, Michael, was there with his son, who’s named Tamatea because he is from there. They went up to the caves—the burial caves—and with their kuia, who was their guide, they went wandering around the caves. My young nephew at the time—a little bit like those large eels in the stream at Hakikino, he was a bit of a slippery young character. He managed to wriggle around through those tomo, and he managed to get lost. But he popped out through a tunnel that they had never known had existed before. He managed to find that passageway that had been undiscovered.

It is time to discover new futures and, with that, a new beginning. It is a new day, as Minister Little has mentioned. It is a time for a new relationship of equals.

Heretaunga haukū nui, Heretaunga, ararau, Heretaunga haaro o te kaahu, Heretaunga takotoa noa.

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

I commend this bill to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be speaking on this bill, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill third reading.

I’d like to acknowledge a number of people. First of all, the people who are not here: the people who have done work on this bill over the ages, over the decades—not just a few years, not just a few days, but over the decades—that are, of course, in our hearts and in our minds as we stand here together today. So I firstly acknowledge those people who have passed. Of course, I’d like to acknowledge the older people in the gallery. They have been through and observed, for their whole lifetime, the process that is concluding today. So I’d like to acknowledge those older people in the gallery for their patience, their tenacity, never giving up, always seeing the positive aspects that this third reading gives to the people of Heretaunga Tamatea.

The next group of people I’d like to acknowledge are the young people—the young people who I see in the gallery, mostly in front of me from where I stand this afternoon, because the young people who are here today have the challenge put in front of them. The challenge is now in front of the young people. The challenge is now to take this third reading, to take this settlement and move it forward and grasp the opportunity that this settlement gives to you, the youth of Heretaunga Tamatea, because it’s not all over. This is not a silver bullet. This is not going to solve all the issues or the problems or the challenges that we all face, but it is a step—and a significant step—and it passes the baton on to the young people of Heretaunga Tamatea, and particularly those who have shown the interest and the courage and who have given the time specifically to be here in this House today.

Minister Little outlined a lot of the history, a lot of the story, and how we got here today, so I’m not going to go over that, but I do want to encourage people to read the historical account that is attached to the deed of settlement. I’m not talking about the people in this House particularly but the people out there who still do not understand the processes and the trials and tribulations that have led us here today. They need to read these historical accounts. They need to read these historical accounts not just of this claim but of any claim that has come to pass in its third reading in this House, because one thing that they will find, if they bother reading it, is a common theme. That theme is that the Māori people of Aotearoa in those days were simply ripped off—ripped off and ripped off bad—there’s no doubt about it. So all it takes is some time from those who doubt that there is such an issue. I encourage those people out there in New Zealand to read an historical account for themselves.

So we get a financial redress—we’ve got 100 million bucks in the bank. That’s good. That gives us a good, strong financial base from which to work. But I’d like to focus on some of the cultural redress—in my mind as important, if not more important—that this settlement gives to the people of Heretaunga Tamatea. The cultural redress gives land—well, not so much land, but a place, a tūrangawaewae—and it restores mana and credibility and strength to the people of Heretaunga Tamatea. I’d like to acknowledge some of the sites, specifically, that have been vested in Heretaunga Tamatea in fee simple. There’s a Blackhead property, an Omahu property, a Parimāhu Beach property, and a Lake Hatuma and Pūrimu Lake property.

Of course, we’ve heard from the Minister that Cape Kidnappers Gannet Protection Reserve and Cape Kidnappers Nature Reserve are being gifted back to the Crown, and that is absolutely appreciated and acknowledged by all New Zealanders, I’m sure. But there are these other things that are called an “overlay classification”. What these classifications do is acknowledge the traditional cultural, spiritual, and historical association with Heretaunga Tamatea to these sites of significance. By the way, I think it was excellent that Rino Tirikatene named the hapū associated in the claim. And I’d like to mention some of these sites of significance because, as I say, these sites are important: A’Deanes Bush Scenic Reserve, Cape Kidnappers Gannet Protection Reserve, Cape Kidnappers Nature Reserve, and Gwavas Conservation Area.

There are also these things called “statutory acknowledgments”. So when it comes to resource consent, these acknowledgments are things that the authorities must consider when giving resource consent to anyone in a particular area. These acknowledgments are statements that were made through the process, and the deed of settlement provides 27 of these statutory acknowledgments. They cover a very, very large area of the Hawke’s Bay: Clive River and its tributaries, Elsthorpe Scenic Reserve, Hiranui Scenic Reserve, Inglis Bush Scenic Reserve, Kāhika Conservation Area, Karamū Stream, part of Kāweka State Forest, Māharakeke Stream, Mākāretu River, Maraetōtara River, Maraetōtara Scenic Reserve, Maraetōtara Gorge Scenic Reserve, Mātai Moana Scenic Reserve, McLeans Bush Scenic Reserve, Mohi Bush Scenic Reserve, Monckton Scenic Reserve, Ngaruroro River and its tributaries, Parkers Bush Scenic Reserve, Pōrangahau and Tāurekaitai River, and Ruahine Forest Conservation Area. These are big, huge areas for which the interests of Heretaunga Tamatea must be considered when giving others resource consent over any of these particular areas, and that is a good thing. That is a good thing.

The other point I’d like to make is there’s these deeds of recognition. They happen when—it basically says the Crown must consult with Heretaunga Tamatea when they have regard to Clive River, Elsthorpe, Hiranui, Inglis Bush, Kāhika Conservation Area, Karamū Stream, and part of Kāweka State Forest Park, and other areas—I don’t have time to go on, but my point here is to be sure that the Heretaunga Tamatea claimants are deeply involved and must be consulted, must be considered. Their statements must be discussed when resource consent or anything over the land is to be considered.

I would like to wrap up by challenging, once again, and acknowledging the work that still has to be done regarding this settlement bill. Minister Finlayson—the Hon Finlayson—talked about the Glasgow leases. That is a challenge. That is a challenge that will be ongoing, and I know that all your efforts will be put to that issue: the Wai 401 overlapping claim relating to Taihape—that’s a good result, which has allowed that claim to be partial; also the Wai 574, Karanema Reserve, claim. I know, again, there must be empathy and understanding amongst the Heretaunga Tamatea people for that issue to be resolved, and I have absolute confidence that those in the gallery are absolutely up for the challenge, and I acknowledge you all here today. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha, e ngā hapū o Heretaunga Tamatea, e Ngāti Kahungunu, nau mai hoki mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. To each representative entity, to each spokesperson and delegate, to the descendants of Heretaunga, of Tamatea, to Ngāti Kahungunu, I say welcome back. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.]

The Green Party stands here, absolutely in full support of the people of Heretaunga Tamatea and this settlement, which is long overdue, which many in this House have acknowledged has taken some time to get to this point. Along with that time, it has taken some people who have not been able to be here to see this third reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill today—an auspicious day, a day that acknowledges the incredibly hard work that has happened and the sacrifices that have been made and the generosity of Heretaunga Tamatea. So it is on this generosity of Heretaunga Tamatea that I am going to focus much of my contribution in this House today.

I’m going to start off by picking up a couple of points that previous members of this House have mentioned. I want to continue the theme of the Hon Chris Finlayson, who made specific mention of the Crown not holding up its part of the Treaty of Waitangi, of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s a big focus of this particular settlement bill. I will expand a little bit more on that later.

I also quickly wanted to pick up on the Glasgow leases issues, which, as the previous speaker mentioned, are absolutely a challenge. I am honoured to be on the Māori Affairs Committee. That did prove quite a big topic of conversation in our select committee. It was quite technical, what has happened, where the Glasgow leases generally have long fixed terms and perpetual rights of renewal have limited the return that has been able to be made on that land. It went through a whole lot of divisions, of dividing up the land into pockets, and that has made it quite difficult for Te Aute College and for Heretaunga Tamatea hapū. The Crown policy is that Treaty settlements cannot interfere with the rights and interests of private parties, such as lessees—that, in itself, is incredibly problematic. I just wanted to acknowledge that where we got to is that the Crown has attempted to address Te Aute Trust Board’s concerns without overriding that settlement policy regarding private property rights.

So the committee considered the bill to not be the proper form for addressing the issue of Glasgow leases more generally. But I pick up on Te Aute to put on the record for the Green Party how challenging that particular issue is and also just to pick up on a bit of a quip comment from the Opposition benches from Mr Alfred Ngaro, who made some suggestion about some competition between boarding schools. I have no idea what he’s talking about, but I’ll just say quickly that I’m a Queen Victoria School old girl. But I’ll also just say that Mr Alfred Ngaro, he happened to mention some preference about where the best-looking girls are, and I just want to say that I have no judgment on the attractiveness of the girls who may have attended Queen Victoria School at the time that I was there, but I can tell you for sure we are staunch, we are committed to decolonising Aotearoa, and we’re pretty smart.

I cannot stand to speak on this bill without acknowledging in some detail the historical account, the dirty dealings, really—the shady, dirty dealings—that happened that resulted in Heretaunga Tamatea having its land taken off. So I wanted to start by—in the bill, as it outlines it in the late 1840s, rangatira invited the Crown. They saw some economic opportunities. They saw some ways to be able to benefit generations to come, and they said, “Come and have a look at some of our whenua. How can we work together? How can we have a partnership?” So that did happen: the Crown did come. The Crown encouraged customary owners to accept an incredibly low price for that whenua in order to gain access to these anticipated benefits. So the Crown officials also arranged for a large area to be added to that block sale, without the knowledge of the whenua’s occupants, of Heretaunga Tamatea. Again, during the 1850s, we see that the Crown acquired land secretly—underhanded, shady—without seeking the consent of all customary owners. Now, this sort of carry-on, which continued and continued and continued—is bound to cause tensions in the relationship internally, within Heretaunga Tamatea, and, absolutely, with the Crown. So that led to violence, and it led to rangatira being killed. That is an incredible price to pay for the Crown not holding up its part of the deal.

So this continuation of shady, dirty deals happened and happened and happened, including the breaking up of land title into individual title. Now, I wanted to pick up—this has happened around Aotearoa since the signing of the Treaty, but I realise we don’t often concentrate on why that is a bad thing. What actually happened when we broke up collective ownership, when the Crown broke up collective ownership into individual title, is it actually broke up the core of Te Ao Māori relationship to each other and to the land. It didn’t just enable land to be taken. It didn’t just do that. Breaking up whenua into individual title attacked the very psyche of how we behave and how we operate and our connections and accountability to each other, to mokopuna that aren’t even here yet, to our tūpuna behind us, and to each other internally, and, most importantly, to Papatūānuku and to taiao, to our whenua and our wai. That’s what breaking up title did, as well as making it easier for the land to be ripped off.

So I did want to spend a bit of time today, probably for the first time ever—and I’ve spoken on many third readings—actually putting a focus on what was being done to us when the Crown broke up our land titles. They didn’t just sell off our land; they were attacking who we are and what we stand for. They were imposing on us the Western focus on individualism, which says that you must run roughshod over everyone else around you and over your land to do well for yourself. That’s what it did. So I want it to be very clear on the House today that it went to the core of Te Ao Māori and the way we behave and our belief in terms of upholding the mana of each other and our whakapapa.

I only have a short time left and so many things to say, so I’m going to include in my contribution today some of the environmental issues. Oh no, first I want to be very clear about the specific sacrifices that were made, where Heretaunga Tamatea was a good Treaty partner, was an honourable and dignified partner in this relationship of attempting to work together with the Crown. What happened was a lot of sacrifices were made; in particular, it’s acknowledged in the bill, the significant contribution the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea have made to the wealth and development of Hawke’s Bay and, indeed, around Aotearoa, and that includes in the areas of the economy, education, farming, politics, culture and arts, public service, and business—only everything; that’s all. That’s all you contributed to, and also to the war service efforts of tūpuna from Heretaunga. That is also acknowledged in the bill. The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to address these longstanding grievances.

I’m going to finish off with mentioning your wai and that you get access and rangatiratanga back over it, including Whatumā and Rūnanga; Poukawa, Tūtaekurī, Ngaruroro, Maraetōtara, Tukituki, Waipawa, Mākāretu, and Porangahau-Tāurekaitai rivers; the Pekapeka swamplands; and our mahinga kai that are central to the well-being of the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea. If you had been able to maintain your rangatiratanga over your wai, they wouldn’t be in the degraded state they are in today. And this is why the Green Party is absolutely clear that we uphold the rangatiratanga proprietary and customary rights for mana whenua over water, because that will be for the benefit of all of us. Kia ora.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i te reo Māori mō te roanga ake o taku kōrero i te rā nei.

Ka papā te whatitiri, hikohiko te uira, kahukura ki te rangi. He ai tū ka riri, ka rongomai ka hē ko Ngungunu, ko Ngangana, ko Apārangi; ko te titī o te rua, ko te tao whakahoro, ko te tao whakawahine, ko te tao o tōku tupuna a Hineāmaru. Tihei wā mauri ora!

Ka tāpae atu ahau i ngā kupu whakamihi ki te tāhuhu o tō tātou Whare hei karanga atu ki te tini, ki te mano ka tau ki runga i Te Whare i te rā nei. Ka karanga tonu ahau ki ngā aituā maha ki runga ki tēnā, ki tēnā, ki tēnā o tātou e tau nei. Kotahi tonu te kōrero mō rātou kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, haere mai, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou te hunga ora. E ōku rangatira, ngā tini whanaunga heoi anō koutou, e ōku rangatira e Ngāpuhi ki Heretaunga, ko tēnei a Ngāi Tamatea ki roto o Te Tai Tokerau e mihi atu ana ki a koutou. Kāti, i rongo atu aku taringa i ngā kōrero a ētahi o Te Whare nei e kimihia e rapu ana e aha nei te whakapapa ka taea e te tangata o tēnei Whare te piri ki ngā mahi i oti i a koutou ki roto i ngā tau maha ka whakatutukihia e tātou i te rā nei. Kua kōrero mai te mema o tērā taha o Te Whare mō te āhuatanga ki te waka o Tākitimu; ka mihi. Ka kōrero mai wētahi mō te āhuatanga o te tākaro whutupōro i roto i ngā kura; ka mihi. Ka hoki atu anō au ki ngā whakapapa o tōku kāinga, me te kōrero e kīia nei, “He rāngai maomao ka taka ki tua o Nukutaurua e kore a muri e hokia.” Nō reira, koutou e ngā maomao ka taka ki tua o Nukutaurua, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou.

Ko ngā tātai whakapapa ki runga i a au Ngāi Tamatea, ko te tupuna i tīmata mai i roto i a au o Te Tai Tokerau. Ko tana mahi hei rapu i tana tamaiti, anā i tana wehenga atu i Te Tai Tokerau ko tana kōrero ki tōna iwi a Ngāi Tamatea ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau, “Tēnā, tirohia ki tua o Rēao, ki tua o Rēpō ka kite atu koutou i tōku wairua, ka mōhio mai koutou e ōku whanaunga ka kore au e hoki mai.” I te rā nei ka tutukihia e tātou i roto i tēnei Whare te tūhono o ngā tātai whakapapa ki runga i a au; otirā ki runga i a koutou e ōku rangatira, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai.

E ōku rangatira kua kōrero mai ētahi o ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei mō te āhuatanga kei roto i te pire. Nō reira ka tautoko atu ahau i ngā kōrero a te Minita Te Hōnore “Anaru Iti”—“Paku”, kei a koutou te tikanga—ka kōrero mai te Minita tawhito, te Hōnore Te Whinireihana, ā kei a koutou taua whiriwhiringa, ka kōrero mai ngā mema mō te āhuatanga o te pire nei. Āe, e tika ana, i tūkino Te Karauna i a koutou; me whakapāha ka tika. Ka whakakōhatungia, ka whakamanahia ki roto i tēnei pire āianei, tata ake nei ka whakamanahia i waho atu i ngā pātū o tēnei Whare.

Nō reira ko tāku atu ki a koutou, e te Pāpā e Gerry, koutou ko ōku rangatira, tuhia ngā mamaetanga ki runga i te pepa; ā taihoa ake nei ko ngā mokopuna e noho mai nei ka hakaina, ka tukuna atu i te reo waiata, kia kore e warewaretia e koutou, otirā e te motu whānui. Ahakaoa te whakapāha a Te Karauna, tēnā, me rongo tonu wā tātou uri whakatupu i ngā mamaetanga i pā kino ki a koutou ki roto i ngā tau, tēnā, kia kaha rā koutou. Ko te whakapāha tēnā.

Ka huri tua atu iāianei na ki te wāhanga, ki te rahi o te pūtea. Āe mārika, te koretake o taua rahi. E mōhio ana koutou i te rahi whenua i tāhaengia e Te Karauna i roto i ngā tau me te mana i tāhaengia, i tūkinohia e Te Karauna i roto i ngā tau. Ahakoa te pūtea o te ao ka kore e ea—ka kore e ea. Nō reira, mō ngā mahi whiriwhiri ki waenganui i a koutou me Te Karauna, anā, ka whakaritea nei tētahi rahi pūtea hei kīnaki i te whakapāha i tukuna atu e Te Karauna ki a koutou, i roto i tēnei pire. Kia kaha rā koutou. E mea nei te kōrero a tōku tupuna a Tā Hemi, “Kua tawhiti kē tā koutou haerenga mai ki te kore e haere tonu ai.” Ko te manako, ko ēnei pūtea he kākano nahenahe nei me te hiahia kia tupu mārika, kia tupu pai, kia mahuta toa, i roto i ngā tau kei mua i a koutou. Kia kaha rā koutou.

Iāianei na ka huri tua atu ki wētahi o ngā wāhanga kua haina mai e ōku hoa mahi i roto i Te Whare nei e pā ana ki ngā wai, ki ngā whenua rangatira, ki ngā wāhi tapu kei a koutou. E harikoa ana kia kite atu ahau i roto i te pire nei, ka whai niho ngā uri o tō koutou tupuna a Tamatea i ngā mahi whakahaere ki runga i ō rātou ake whenua. Ko te wero tēnā ki ngā kaunihera i waho atu i ngā pātū o tēnei Whare. Ahakoa ngā kōrero a te Whare Pāremata, e mōhio ana tātou katoa i kōrero atu ahau ki tōku tuakana ki te Hōnore a Kelvin Davis i a ia e huri haere ana ki te whakatutuki i tana mahi e pā ana ki tana pōtae mahi arā ko te Crown/Māori relations, hei tāna ko te ngau kino i rangona whānuitia e tōku tuakana a Kelvin Davis i a ia e huri karore haere ana ki runga i te motu whānui ko ngā tūkinohia a ngā kaunihera ā-rohe. Nō reira, he wero tēnā kei roto. Āe, ka whakamanahia te reo o Ngāi Tamatea ki roto i ngā mahi e pā ana ki a rātou – āe, ka whai niho, engari e mōhio ana tātou ko wētahi o ngā tāngata kei roto i ngā kaunihera, e hoa, he taringa turi ki ngā take motuhake o te ao Māori. Nō reira kia kaha rā koutou.

Āe ka kite atu ahau ko wētahi o ngā wāhanga kei roto i te pire, ka whakamanahia ngā ingoa tūpuna, ngā ingoa motuhake o ngā wāhi whenua kei runga i a koutou, kia kaua tētahi atu e mea atu ana, anā ko te ingoa o tēnei wāhi anā he ingoa Pākehā, kāhore. Ka whakamanahia e te pire nei ngā ingoa tūturu o ngā whenua kei roto i a koutou e harikoa ana. Ko te wero nui iāianei na, kia whakatikatika i te reo o tēnā, o tēnā, ka whakahua tika ai i ngā ingoa tupuna kei roto i a koutou. Kua rongo atu ahau i ngā kōrero a ētahi o Te Whare nei, ka aroha atu ki tō tātou reo me ngā ingoa tupuna. He wero nui tēnā kei mua i a koutou, kei mua i a tātou.

[Bell rung]

Kua rongo koutou, anō nei ko Ngā Manu Kōrero tēnei. Kua rīngi te pere. Nō reira hei whakarāpopoto ake i taku kōrero e ōku rangatira, kei te kite atu ahau i a koe e te tuakana e Kiwa Whatarau, ko ngā whakaaro ka aro tōtika atu ki tō tamāhine, ki tō pōtiki, ko reira te oranga o tēnei pire, ko reira te oranga o tēnei pire. Mō ngā uri whakatupu te take. Kāore au e mōhio ana ki tētahi tupuna kua mate ki roto i ngā tau i mahi i wā rātou mahi, ko rātou te take—kāhore. Ko wā rātou kōrero ka heke iho mai nei ki runga i ngā pokowhiwhi o ngā uri whakatupu ā taihoa ake nei. Nō reira, ki tōku tamāhine ki a Te Ataroa, ko te wero nui ka tau ki runga i a koutou; kia hāpai tonu i te mana, o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna ka wahaina mai ki roto i tēnei pire ka wahaina tonu ki roto i a koutou. Kia kaha rā koutou e ngā uri whakatupu, ki roto i ngā tau e tū nei.

E harikoa ana tēnei whanaunga o ngā hunga e noho mai nei ki runga, ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, kia haere tōtika, me te hiahia ka tatari mai ngā mema o tēnei taha o Te Whare mō te tono a Heretaunga kia anga atu ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata nei ki roto i a rātou; he aha te take, he whakanui ake i te kaupapa e kōrerohia nei e tātou i te rā nei, me te kai tahi, me te kite atu mehemea e rahi nei ngā pāua o Ngāti Kahungunu ki ngā pāua o Te Tai Tokerau. Kāti, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e ōku rangatira, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. I shall deliver my entire speech in Māori today.

The thunder crashes, the lightning flashes, as there is a rainbow in the sky. It is flashing an ill omen, as a war party is heard by Ngungunu, Ngangana, and Apārangi; at the opening of the pit, as the incantations releasing the warriors from tapu are recited, the incantations of my ancestor Hineāmaru. Behold, the breath of life!

May I offer up to the rafters of our House some small words of welcome to the many who have graced this House with their presence today. In keeping with tradition, I also acknowledge the bereavements that are borne by each of you. All that remains to be said is, I embrace you, farewell.

My focus now returns to us, the living. My illustrious leaders, my many relations, my chiefs, that is to say, Ngāpuhi who reside in the Hawke’s Bay, this is Ngāi Tamatea from the North, who bids you welcome. Well now, these ears have listened to various ones of this House fossick around for some tenuous connection that will associate them with the wonderful work that you have accomplished over the years, and which will bear fruit today. The member from that side of the House mentioned the Tākitimu canoe; that’s fine. Some made their connections through school rugby teams; that’s fine, too. For my part, I must go right back to my homeland and to the guidance provided by a maxim of ours that says, “Once the shoal of maomao passes the point of Nukutaurua, it will never return.” I therefore greet you, the shoal of maomao that has reached the point of no return.

My own connection to Ngāi Tamatea begins with an ancestor from the North. His mission was to find his son, and as he was leaving the North he turned to his people, those Ngāi Tamatea living in the North, and said, “When you look for me beyond this world of light and dark, should you find my spirit you will know that I shall not return.” Today, in this House, my genealogical bonds find a natural place alongside yours; my eminent leaders, I bid you welcome.

Distinguished guests, some members of Parliament have spoken today about various aspects of this bill. I record my support for what was said by the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little—“Iti” or “Paku”; your choice—the speech by the former Minister, the Hon Mr Finlayson, and by various other members. It is true you were badly treated by the Crown; an apology is certainly due. This will soon be formally set down for all to see.

Therefore, I put to you, sir—Gerry and to all of you elders here—record those hurtful memories on paper; in time these little ones who are sitting here today will remember it all in haka and in song, and you, along with the rest of the country, will never forget. Notwithstanding the Crown’s apology, coming generations need to know the injustices that you have suffered over the years; may you remain strong. Let us leave the apology there.

I now turn to the part which deals with financial redress. Yes indeed, it is a piffling amount. You are well aware of the enormous tracts of land that were stolen by the Crown over the years, as well as the way your tribal reputation and dignity was laid waste and disparaged by that same Crown. No amount of money can ever erase that. Nevertheless, negotiations between you and the Crown have taken place and there is agreement on the amount of compensation that will accompany the apology by the Crown, in this bill. Just keep going. My grandfather, Sir Hemi, once said, “You have come too far not to go further.” It is our earnest wish that this settlement is merely seeding money to be used to produce profuse growth, development, and advancement in the years to come. Be bold.

Let us now look at other sections that have been signed off by my colleagues in this House, and they relate to water, land blocks, and burial grounds in your territory. I am very pleased to see in this bill provision for the descendants of Tamatea to have actual authority over what happens on their land. That will be a challenge for the councils that work outside of the perimeters of this House. Despite what is said in Parliament, we are all familiar with the challenges—which, by the way, are confirmed by my senior colleague the Hon Kelvin Davis, for, as he travels around the country attending to his Crown/Māori relations portfolio, he contends that some of the most frustrating challenges throughout the land are the abuses that stem from local or district councils. Take note: you will be challenged. Yes, Ngāi Tamatea will have a voice in matters pertaining to them; yes, it will be an authoritative one, but we also know that councils, unfortunately, are sometimes populated by people who are deaf to the unique circumstances of the Māori world. Stand firm.

I see amongst the provisions of the bill that ancestral names and place names that are highly significant to you are to be recognised, so no one will be able to say that the name of one of these places is a Pākehā name, no. This bill recognises the real names of places that are in your domain, and that makes me glad. The big job ahead now is to ensure that people will be able to properly pronounce your various ancestral names. I have heard the pronunciation of some people in this House, and I am despondent for our language and for the names of our ancestors. You will need to set your minds to the task, as will we.

[Bell rung]

You have heard it—anyone would think this was the Manu Kōrero. The bell has rung.

In conclusion, therefore, ladies and gentlemen—and I see you there, my brother Kiwa Whatarau. My comments go directly to your daughter, to your youngest, for therein lies the lifeblood of this bill. It is for the generations still to come. I cannot think of a single elder who died during this long, arduous haul who did it all for himself—not one. The elders’ words have passed down to now rest on the shoulders of future generations. So, I say to you, my girl, Te Ataroa, the responsibility now rests with your generation; the restoration of the dignity of your elders and ancestors is contained in this bill and must be enacted by you. You, the younger generation, must take hold of the challenge in the coming years.

As a relative of the good people who are sitting up there, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House and to a speedy conclusion, and I further wish that the members on this side of the House are standing by to receive the invitation from Heretaunga to join them. For what, you may ask: to celebrate what has been our sole focus today, to eat together, and, of course, to see whether Ngāti Kahungunu pāua are as big as pāua from the North. To close, thank you, thank you, my esteemed ones, best wishes to us all.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, this is a split call. Rima mineti ka karanga e hō kia koe [Five-minute call]—Tim van de Molen.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ki ngā hapū, ngā whānau o ngā uri o Heretaunga, Tamatea, nau mai ki tēnei Whare.

[To the tribes and to the families of the descendants of Heretaunga and of Tamatea, welcome to this House.]

As a new member of this House, this is my first opportunity to speak to a Treaty settlement bill, and I am both excited and, I admit, somewhat nervous taking this opportunity. But I would just like to start by acknowledging the importance of gaining closure in these matters, both for Heretaunga Tamatea and, indeed, for all New Zealanders. I’d also like to claim a link, if I may, through my own history as a member of Ngāti Tūmatauenga, which, I believe, is shared by many members of Heretaunga Tamatea, and also a shared link through, I believe, a shared desire to strive for a better future for all of our tamariki.

I’d like to acknowledge the commitment from the former Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, with the many years of hard work he has put into Treaty negotiations under the former Government, and, of course, the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, for picking up the baton, as it were, and continuing with this work.

As I’ve mentioned, I value the opportunity to improve relations between the Crown and this hapū, and what we’ve seen through this settlement is that, obviously, there’s an element of financial reparation within that. And I’d just like to acknowledge that whilst that’s an important part, money actually doesn’t heal the emotional harm that is carried by people in these situations; but, actually, it does provide opportunity to grow, to develop, and, hopefully, to flourish.

One area that I think needs to be touched on again, and has actually been touched on by most speakers, is the Glasgow leases, in particular around Te Aute College. Those leases are a model that was put in place many, many years ago, and, at the time, perhaps that was the most appropriate model. The current setup that we have in terms of operational lease agreements for land is somewhat more advanced, and I would certainly look forward to exploring a more appropriate solution in the future in that regard.

Just touching on the college, actually; it’s fantastic to see some of the fine students that have come from that establishment, and I just wanted to, in particular, mention one of those today, Second Lieutenant Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu VC. He served as an intelligence officer in the New Zealand Army during the Second World War, and I have a particular affinity, having served not as an intelligence officer but as an infantry officer. It was encouraging to see and to learn about his story. He was in command of a platoon in C Company of the Māori Battalion, having been shifted sideways from an intelligence officer role into that, and he was involved in the action at Tebaga Gap in March 1943.

Now, unfortunately, he died in service in that particular offensive—and, subsequently, defensive—action, but I decided to share the citation given with his posthumous Victoria Cross: “He led his men with great determination and skill straight up the face of the hill, undeterred by the intense mortar and machine-gun fire which caused considerable casualties. Displaying courage and leadership of the highest order he was himself first on the hill crest, personally annihilating at least two enemy machine gun posts.” He was, it’s important to note, the first Māori to receive the Victoria Cross.

I make this connection because I believe that strength, that determination, and that courage that he showed represents some of the shared values that are present in this agreement and, indeed, outlines some of the importance around freedom, around opportunity, loyalty, and family: areas that are shared on this side of the HousWilliee and, indeed, by all members of the House, I am sure, and values that have underpinned negotiations between the Crown and Heretaunga Tamatea. So it’s encouraging to see this now progressing through the final stages in the House, and I wish Heretaunga Tamatea all the best for their future. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Ki ngā hapū, ngā whānau o ngā uri o Heretaunga, Tamatea, nau mai ki tēnei Whare. Kia ora.

[To the tribes and to the families of the descendants of Heretaunga and of Tamatea, welcome to this House. Kia ora.]

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill, the third reading, and as my colleague Tim van de Molen said, I’m also a new member to this House, and it is one of my first opportunities to speak on a settlement bill and it is my first opportunity on a third reading.

So, at the outset, I’d like to acknowledge the people who’ve been part of this process, and, firstly, I’d like to acknowledge everyone here in the gallery representing Heretaunga Tamatea. We appreciate you coming down to Wellington to be here and to witness the passing, unanimously, of the third reading of this bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for the work that he has done in shepherding this bill through the parliamentary process, and Andrew Little, who is now completing it as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I’d also like to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that they have done hearing submissions, understanding the story, understanding what needs to be done, and ensuring that this legislation represents the intention of the settlement.

This bill relates to a deed of settlement signed by the Crown in 2007. It records the Crown’s apology and agrees to a final settlement of all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims for Heretaunga Tamatea. This is a wide-ranging historical claim which includes alienation of land through the failure to implement the terms of pre-Treaty land transactions, the Land Claims Commission, the dispossession of land through deliberately misleading business practices, and the impact of the loss of communal ancestral lands on traditional tribal structure.

During the 20th century, Heretaunga Tamatea hapū and whānau suffered social, economic, and cultural marginalisation, with more than half of their people living outside the traditional rohe today. As we consider this bill and as we seek to pass it, we remember the wrongs of the past and we look to the future. So this bill includes an apology—an official Crown apology—cultural redress, statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, and financial redress.

I just want to take a short moment to acknowledge each one of those five aspects. An apology is important because it recognises the wrongs which took place. It recognises that it was wrong and that it must be apologised for, and that is that the Crown does say sorry for what was done. The cultural redress understands and reflects the fact that there was an impact on the Heretaunga Tamatea people, and it seeks to address the challenges from the economic and cultural place that they have been put in.

Statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition mean that there is recognition through legislation. I think my colleagues have sort of touched on how this makes recognition under the Resource Management Act and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act. The authorities who give resource consents under these Acts must also have regard to these statements for certain purposes, and there are 27 statutory acknowledgments, covering a wide range of different issues. The deeds of recognition require the Crown to consult with Heretaunga Tamatea and to have regard for Heretaunga Tamatea’s special association with a site or place and specify Heretaunga Tamatea input into the management of those areas administered by the Department of Conservation and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. There are 20 deeds of settlement recognised in this legislation.

Finally, financial and commercial redress: the redress recognises the losses suffered by Heretaunga Tamatea arising from breaches by the Crown of its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. It will provide Heretaunga Tamatea with resources to assist them in developing their economic and social well-being. We all acknowledge that the contribution that the Crown can make is only a small portion of the harm which was done, and we know that it will go a long way to helping to support the future of Heretaunga Tamatea as it looks to the future, and that includes $100 million of finance and a range of property which is also selected as well.

So I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its rapid passing. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Koutou katoa Heretaunga Tamatea, Ngāti Kahungunu, he hōnore nui ki te kite i a koutou i tēnei wā, he tika me mihi ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa, mai te tīmata tae noa ki nāianei. Tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha, ki te whawhai mō tēnei kaupapa i ngā wā katoa, tēnei te tino mihi. Haramai, haramai, nau mai.

[Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. To you all who hail from Heretaunga, from Tamatea, from Ngāti Kahungunu, I am honoured to see you at this time. It is only right that I should acknowledge your determination to advance this matter right from the start, until now. I really do applaud your steadfastness for continuing the fight on this important issue. I salute you.]

I was listening to the member over there, and he was talking about being a little bit shy and humble to talk about his connection with Kahungunu. I’m not so shy, and so I just thought I’d remind you all of your greatest rugby player, my grandfather Everard Jackson, as I’m sure some of the kaumātuas will confirm. I remember him at these times when I see people—1934 to 1940, he played for Hawke’s Bay and was an All Black. I’m always reminded of him when I see the people here, and of my uncles, who have played a major part. Some of you probably don’t go along with them some of the time—my Uncle Moana Jackson and Uncle Syd Jackson, probably two of your—[Applause from the gallery] Oh, so you—well, the family was a bit split. The family was a bit split, but they were good times, the way they always advocated, in terms of kaupapa Māori, for Kahungunu all the time—all the time.

So I’m reminded of them when I see you all here today, and I mihi to you for coming for this wonderful kaupapa. You’ve heard all the details, and I want to say well done to the negotiators, Liz Munroe, Peter Paku, Brian Morris, and, of course, Dr David Tīpene-Leach. It’s important we acknowledge those negotiators.

I didn’t want to be negative today about anything because we’re in celebration mode—right?—but I think that at these sorts of times, there are appropriate times to acknowledge the pros and cons of the Treaty settlement process. There are appropriate times to recognise what a National Government—you know, I couldn’t believe it at the time. Seriously, you know, we were always at war with the Tories when I was a union official, but I give them all the credit in the world for what happened in the mid-1990s—all the credit in the world.

In 1995, the National Government set up the claims framework, believing that it was necessary to restore honour for the Crown and to assist Māori economically and socially, while acknowledging there would be no parity for Māori while the claims existed. Now, they were honest enough at the time to admit that Māori could not be recompensed, and I remember well what Jim Bolger, the Prime Minister, and Doug Graham said. They said that the total loss for Māori, they could not compensate for that, and it’s always important to remember that—that we are settling for less than 2 percent of the total loss. Never, never forget that.

Our people have made a huge contribution to this country—a huge contribution to this country. We all know what the claims are worth. Tainui and Ngāi Tahu, economists said, could’ve claimed up to $20 billion, and what did they claim? They claimed $170 million—$170 million. Why did they do that—why did they do that? They did that to move on. They did that to give their iwi a start. They did that because they wanted to contribute to New Zealand. The National Party recognised that at the time. Labour recognised it at the time. The sad part is New Zealanders still don’t recognise that. That’s the sad part. In fact, the level of naivety is astounding—absolutely astounding.

We could have bankrupted this country. We could have bankrupted this country if we had gone through each tribe, and the significance of the losses in each tribe, and that makes me sad because the loss is not recognised. Even one of New Zealand’s finest businessmen, Hugh Fletcher, said the Treaty settlement process—and, again, meaning no disrespect to the National Government or Labour, but he said he wouldn’t have even participated in it, so bad was the compensation. But we, as a people, have not been given our dues—not been given our recognition. You walk down Lambton Quay right now and you ask 100 people, “What do you think of those Māoris, that Kahungunu lot who got a settlement?”; 80 percent of them will say, “Well, that’s a bit of separatism, isn’t it? That’s a bit of racism, isn’t it?” We are still not there as a country. We are still not there as a country, and that makes me sad—that makes me sad.

And we’re not helped, of course, by prominent businessmen. I go back a year or so, Sir William Gallagher, who said, “There’s no doubt [that] (Māori) gave up sovereignty … and now we have all these bloody reparations going on.” That’s “separatism”. That’s “apartheid”. “There is no definition of Māori”, he said. “You are Māori if you feel you are Māori.”—Sir William Gallagher said that. He apologised later on, of course, because he knew things weren’t going to go too well for business.

And we had Bob Jones, of course, saying the whole Treaty process was all about a gravy train. And then he said other despicable things that are a waste of time repeating in the House—waste of time repeating in the House. Then you get the weekly racist rubbish from Don Brash and the Hobson’s Pledge nutjobs. They send us emails—they all send us emails about how unfair it is that “Kahungngng”—well, they can’t even say it properly, but they say “that ‘Kahunununu-whatever’ lot, how racist those ‘Kahunununu’ lot are—your friends. How racist they are for picking up that $100 million that should have been $1 billion.” You get that happening every week, always hitting us all the time, and we have a New Zealand that’s not aware of what really happened—23 years on from when the National Party set up the Treaty framework. It disturbs me.

So I wonder—and I have colleagues in the House here and we talk about it ourselves—if we should be teaching the Treaty in the schools. I wonder about that. Now, I’m not putting out Labour policy or anything like that. I’ve got my senior mate over here, Minister Twyford, thinking, “Oh, be careful, Willie.” He’s got to watch it himself, of course. But this is the type of kōrero that we have to have as mature politicians. Should we be teaching our history in schools, teaching our kids about the settlement process so they can grow up and talk about why their tīpuna were ripped off?

I worry sometimes that we get so politically worried about polls and whatnot that we don’t do the right thing. And it’s something to consider, I think. But I’m optimistic. I’m hopeful that this $105 million settlement for Heretaunga Tamatea fulfils all the potential we know within the tribe. You see, we have a new breed of politicians. And I’ll say that on both sides of the House. We all understand—all politicians here understand the history in terms of injustice, inequality, sexism, and racism. It doesn’t matter, now, whether you’re in Labour, National, or the Greens or whatever. We all understand that. It was brought to the fore no better than when our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said recently, “we have failed in our partnership, but I inherently believe in our power to change”. She also said “hold us to account.” in terms of that Treaty partnership. With the greatest respect to her, I think this is bigger than one party being held to account. This country should be held to account. The obligations in terms of the partnership don’t just fall on the Labour Party, they fall on this whole House.

All of us have obligations to fulfil the principles of a partnership that was first thought about in 1840. That’s just the kaupapa that I wanted to talk about today in terms of this particular settlement. I think we have responsibilities as politicians to fulfil the initial hopes, the initial principles, that were set out in the Treaty of Waitangi, and I hope that we can think about that every time we sit down to sign off on Treaty settlements like this.

Nō reira ki a koutou, hōnore nui tēnei.

[Therefore, to you all, this is a great honour.]

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to be asked to make a contribution on behalf of the National Opposition on the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill this afternoon. I just wanted to start, I guess, by making mention of the Hon Chris Finlayson and Andrew Little. Because I think that in Finlayson’s time as the Minister he did a wonderful job with a very difficult task. And I want to comment in a minute on a couple of things that the previous speaker said—Willie Jackson—because I don’t agree with one or two of the things he said and I’m going to make a point of that. But I think this process—and I absolutely agree with what he said about that—has been pretty amazing.

And I think if you think about our time in this House, probably the most rewarding thing that we’re able to participate in as parliamentarians is the Treaty settlement process. And I absolutely agree with the previous speaker Willie Jackson that the process will never compensate fully for what went on in our past in New Zealand. And I’ll get into some boarding school issues later on that we won’t compensate for either. But I do want to take one thing up with the previous speaker. I don’t think—whatever happened in the Treaty settlement process—that the process would have bankrupted New Zealand. And the reason I say that is because all the Treaty settlements I’ve witnessed to date have been hugely beneficial to the communities that they are settled on. They’re hugely beneficial to New Zealand. And I know very well that the Māori people are very like the Scottish—they don’t part with stuff readily. And so when they get it, they make the most of it, and I think that’s pretty special. So I don’t think it matters how much or what goes on in the course of the Treaty settlement process, it’s always valued and it’s always looked after in a pretty amazing way.

I also think that in my case in the Rangitīkei we’ve had a couple of settlements; one that’s been around for a little while, a very small settlement around Ngāti Apa. And to watch the progress that they’ve made—and, in fact, Mr Assistant Speaker, your own area and your own people to some extent—with their settlement, I think, is spectacular and the partnerships that they’ve built with their community that they live in as a result of those settlements are also spectacular. I think that we can expect the same thing to happen throughout New Zealand, and I think that’s the exciting thing about it.

So I have no mandate to speak about the wonderful personalities of Heretaunga Tamatea who have worked so hard to achieve this settlement other than to say that I admire them greatly and I admire their persistence, their determination, and congratulate them on achieving the settlement. And I want to make another observation, because I think that one of the really intimidating things about this process for anyone who participates in it is that you’re really making a decision that’s almost like a settlement for life. So you’re almost giving yourself a life sentence, because you are making a decision on behalf of future generations. That’s hugely important, not only for those future generations but for this country. And so it is a very challenging thing to go through. So I congratulate all those people who have been involved in it.

I think, from the Crown’s side of it, too, those Ministers and members of the teams that put these settlements together are pretty special as well. They do a great job, and whilst we may, as Willie Jackson said, never get to the full extent or get to a position that perhaps we’d have, ideally, got to, I hope we’ll get to a position where, again, the issues that the previous speaker raised, where you can walk down the street and we can be proud of the fact that we’ve got to a point in New Zealand where we have, at least, repaired the damage and we accept that, as a community and a society, it’s a very good way to go.

I want to talk about the Heretaunga Plains for a minute, in Hawke’s Bay. It’s a wonderful, pretty, hugely fertile, and amazing place. It’s a place where I was fortunate, when I was young, to spend a lot of time. It’s a place that’s managed, I guess, to capture my mother, my sister, and my daughter—some bloke got them all and took them out of the Manawatū, or out of the Rangitīkei, and took them to Hawke’s Bay. That’s about the only connection I’ve got with Hawke’s Bay. It’s interesting they only ever get the females; they don’t get the males to shift over there, but it is an interesting place. I think, whether you start at Cape Kidnappers and go all the way to Porangahau, it is a beautiful part of New Zealand, and it’s a part of New Zealand that we should all be very proud of. And I think that Marama Davidson mentioned, in her speech, the environmental challenges that that part of New Zealand has. I think there’s been some spectacular progress made with respect to that as well.

I wanted to talk briefly about Te Aute because I remember, as a skinny little winger, getting beaten up by a big boy from Te Aute. Luckily, the score ended up in our favour at the end of it. But I went to, I suppose, the brother-school of Te Aute in Whanganui. And I noticed that the very good Catholic former Minister Finlayson was talking about Hato Pāora College—well, we also beat them. But he couldn’t resist bringing that Catholic piece into it. And I know us Anglicans are very suspicious of them, but I am also equally sure that the settlement process, while I think that it will be great for Te Aute, I just hope that the history and the value of schools like Te Aute, Hato Pāora, and Turakina Māori Girls College, which, unfortunately, has since closed—I think they’re so important to New Zealand and to our future that I think we should do everything we can to preserve them. I notice Wanganui Collegiate School has allowed girls to go to the school. I’m not sure Te Aute has got to that point yet, but that’s, obviously, some progress that could be made if it does.

So I think that it’s really important that we do make the most of these pieces of history for us, really, because they are great parts of our history. And I was fortunate as well to go to school with a grandson of Sir Māui Pōmare, so he might have gone to Te Aute but his grandson went to Wanganui Collegiate. And that just shows how close together we are, really, as a society.

I wanted to mention something else that Peeni Henare spoke about, and I think it’s an issue that us Scottish people have a great deal of difficulty getting our tongues around: the pronunciation of some of the—and I would have hated to take up Rino Tirikatene’s role of trying to read out all those hapū. That would have got my tongue going really badly. But I think Peeni Henare made a really important point, and it is that, as New Zealanders, we do need to learn how to pronounce Māori names properly. We need to learn how to speak the language properly. I’m sure future generations—and I know that the next generations of my family are much more proficient in this sort of thing than I am. I just hope we continue that, because it is part of our heritage, and I think, wherever you go in the world, we’ve often made the point—or, not made the point; we’ve lost our heritage through, basically, ignoring and neglecting those sorts of things. And I think that’s a really important point that we need to pick up in this Parliament. It’s also an important thing that, I think, the Treaty settlement process gives us the opportunity to strengthen a lot of those bits of our history that we need to strengthen.

So I think it’s an exciting time for New Zealand, frankly, as we work our way through these Treaty settlement processes, and I realise there’s a lot of angst and, as I said earlier, it is a very brave decision that many of these people—these men and women—make as they go through these, I guess, effectively, forgiving 160 years of history and setting us off on a new pathway to the future. So I think it’s exciting. I look forward to that continuing and I think, as a Parliament, we are making the very best of what, historically, has been a difficult situation for us. And I think, when you saw the Parliament this morning, where the two sides of the House were far from agreeing with what was going on in here, I think it’s a real privilege for us also to be able, equally, to agree on something like this on the same day as this morning, when we were disagreeing with stuff. I think that’s the strength of this place, and I just congratulate everyone in the House on their part in that, and I certainly congratulate Heretaunga Tamatea and Ngāti Kahungunu on the efforts they’ve put in to settling this thing. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā marae maha, e ngā hapū katoa o Heretaunga Tamatea, e kuia mā, e koro mā, e ngā rangatira, mokopuna hoki, tēnā koutou nau mai, tēnā koutou nau mai, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe. Members of this House, tēnā tātou katoa. To the many marae represented here, to the numerous tribal groupings of Heretaunga, of Tamatea, distinguished elders and chiefs, right to our grandchildren here, tēnā koutou nau mai, tēnā koutou nau mai, tēnā koutou katoa.]

It is, indeed, my privilege to be the last speaker on this most important bill, at the third and final reading of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. It has been an absolutely long journey, and I want to commend those that had the foresight to bring the claim to the Crown’s attention, and our negotiators for their efforts. I want to acknowledge the former Minister of Treaty settlements, the Hon Chris Finlayson; the current Minister, Andrew Little; and all officials that were involved in ensuring that we are here, in this House, addressing this bill.

My colleague Louisa Wall, when we pō’hiri-ed our whānau to this House—and, I want to say, four buses left at 5 a.m. this morning from the original site of the Kotahitanga Māori Parliament of Waipatu Marae, and I commend them for being here today. Louisa said to me as we had the pō’hiri in the Banquet Hall, “Mate, where is the rangatira wāhine whakaahua?

[where is the photo of the woman of rank?]

So I thought I would take this time to acknowledge the wāhine toa who whakapapa-ed to many of the people that are in this House. I draw on Ngā Taumata: Portrait Of Ngati Kahungunu 1870 - 1906, and I want to acknowledge some of the leading Māori women who stood up for our land rights, for the health of our whānau, and for suffrage in our communities back in Heretaunga Tamatea.

I want to start with Ākenehi Pātoka Rātima Rerepukapuka Tōmoana from Ngāti Tūwharetoa. In 1852, Ākenehi Pātoka, a chieftainess in her own right, married Hēnare Tōmoana, a chief of Heretaunga. With the establishment of the Native Land Court in 1865, Ākenehi, as with many other female landowners of those times, represented her land interests. It is quoted, “Through the courage of my wife Ākenehi … the lands have been retained”. This is what Hēnare Tōmoana said at the Native Land Court hearings of the Whenuakura land block in 1883.

Ārihi Te Nahu, Ngāti Te Rangi-ko-ia-anake, was quoted as saying, “I know this land. I have rights of ancestry, occupation and cultivation; ancestry through Honomōkai, occupation through Te Whatu—i-Āpiti, cultivation through Te Hāpuku, and Te Moananui.” Ārihi said this this at the hearing of the Aorangi Reserve, 18 May 1899.

Hōriana Te Wharepū ko Ngāti Kurukuru. Hōriana attended the hui wāhine held at Te Haukē in 1895 and, as with many wāhine toa of those times, she sought prohibition of alcohol, temperance, and better health services for Māori. At this hui, she spoke to the motion of selling the lands. The women voted unanimously that the land sales should cease. Hōriana called these sales “the greatest disaster to touch us.”

Mārata Te Heuheu, also known as Marata Te Herea of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Marata was actively involved in women’s institutions: the temperance movement and land court issues in both Kahungunu ki Heretaunga and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. She helped in the formal establishment of Ngā Komiti Wāhine, with which, by 1895, 35,000 people were associated. Amongst these women were Ākenehi Tōmoana, Pukepuke Tangiora, Horiana Tiakitai, Niniwa-i-te-Rangi, and Meri Mangakāhia. Ngā Komiti Wāhine was formed as a response to increasing land sales, increasing drunkenness, and declining health of Māori families, while women, as landowners, wanted the right to vote.

Finally, Pukepuke Tangiora—raised at Te Pā, Ocean Beach, and renowned for her great beauty. In 1895, Ngā Komiti Wāhine emerged as a result of Te Kotahitanga. At the inaugural hui held at Te Haukē, Te Hapuku Te Nahu, a chief of Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Te Whatu-i-Āpiti, welcomed the women, encouraging them to uphold the deeds of their ancestors. He cited Hinepare, the wife of Te Raia, as having mana equal to that of the Queen of England. “Be strong.”, he encouraged them. Pukepuke Tangiora encouraged other women to stand and speak their thoughts. She’s quoted as saying, “Other women have chastised the men for their failure to bring about the cessation of land sales. Let us, the women, share our thoughts about these issues.”

There have been many times I have stood in this House to defend Māori land. With those women that I have recited, there is no reason why people should be concerned or surprised that I have stood in this House against land legislation that will alienate our people. It is those great wāhine toa that I have talked about, and the many others, who, at that time, stood to retain Māori whenua. Today, here, we are celebrating a small compensation for the land that was lost by Heretaunga Tamatea.

Over five generations—five generations—from 1850 to the 1900s, Heretaunga Tamatea went from owning 1.4 million hectares in Heretaunga Tamatea, and it was reduced to 200,000 hectares. That was 1.2 million hectares lost by these people, and, yes, we are celebrating $105 million compensation. You do the maths: 1.2 million hectares done by the actions and omissions of the Crown, who promised the retention of Māori land and undisturbed possession of our taonga. That is what we are here acknowledging, but we are also celebrating the fact that we were coming to a conclusion.

I, too, was at Te Aute College when we signed the deed in September 2015. I remember it dearly, because it’s the school that my dad attended and my three brothers. It’s at this time that I think about those that are no longer with us. And I know my dad, my grandmother, my great-grandmother, and that’s why I want to whakapapa and acknowledge Tapairu, Rongomaraeroa, Rākautātahi, my Omāhu, my Kohupātiki, my Ngāti Pāhauwera whakapapa, because I stand on their shoulders today in acknowledging the finality of the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. Without those people that have gone before us, there is nothing left.

In the time I’ve got left, can I please make this statement about the Glasgow leases. The Māori Affairs Committee made it very, very clear. The select committee, which is a bipartisan committee, has made this statement: “We do not consider the bill to be the proper forum for addressing the wider issue of Glasgow leases more generally.” That is what the select committee has said. That is what the current Minister said in his second speech. So to our Glasgow leases, our Whatuiāpiti people, please remember that in the passing of this bill, the Crown and the representatives from the Māori Affairs Committee have acknowledged there is much more work to do on the Glasgow leases.

Nō reira, e te whānau kua huihui mai i tēnei wā, harikoa te ngakau ka kitekite i a koutou i runga i te kaupapa tino whakahirahira i a tātou katoa. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, to you my brethren gathered here now, I am overjoyed to see you on this, an auspicious occasion for us all.]

Bill read a third time.

[Haka]

SPEAKER: Can I acknowledge and thank the people in the gallery and say that today is a day which no one here will ever forget, if for nothing else but your response to us. Thank you.

Bills

Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 June.

New Part 3 Parameters of Review

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the chance to speak on this bill. I’d just like to reflect on the previous sitting of the Parliament and just to echo the words, I think Willie Jackson probably made his finest speech in this Parliament with his contribution to that last bill, and I agree wholeheartedly with him. I think that for the newer members of Parliament—you’ve just witnessed one of the special times that you see in this Parliament, where you actually see some redress being done. It may not be full redress, but at least partial redress is done in this Parliament, and that is a good thing for members of the House. I’d just like to congratulate the many people that have travelled here today and wish them all the best.

I realise that we’re getting on to the bill, Minister Nash, but, actually, taxation could not be far from the thoughts of the very people that have received a Treaty settlement, because through having a lower tax rate they will no doubt be able to get more income and build their equity and their base. One thing that we should always aim to in our country is for lower taxes, and that would make us a much stronger country. Madam Chair is looking at me wondering where this is going to, but we have an amendment that’s in the name of the member for Hunua, Mr Bayly, and that amendment seeks to have in Part 3 a review of the base erosion rules.

Now, basically, the base erosion and profit shifting rules that we’re looking at here today are to ensure that people pay their tax in New Zealand and don’t try and shift their tax obligation overseas through transfer of funds, through dividends, and through interest and suchlike.

That really becomes so important in the corporate tax - paying world, where you see the environment that we’re going into. The amendment seeks to have a review, and, essentially, the really important part of that is in clause 55(2)(b), where it says that “relevant changes in taxation policy in relevant OECD countries;” are important and it would continue to consider those other countries as part of the review. That is so crucial for New Zealand and for the iwi that have just been in the gallery, because if we look at what’s happening around the world, in the OECD, there is a major transition to lower company tax rates: France are moving to 25 percent—even with a left-wing Government, they’re still moving to a 25 percent tax rate; the US, the biggest drop of all, are moving from 35 percent to 21 percent—

Simeon Brown: Forward-thinking!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Forward-thinking it is. Australia are taking their company tax rate down to 25 percent, whereas in New Zealand we’re stuck at 28 percent and there’s no hope that that’s going to go down. If anything, we will be going to the polls at the next election with a proposal from that Government to increase the tax rate.

The review is important, Minister, because that review says that it would compare New Zealand tax rates against other tax rates. The reason that’s important for base erosion is that if there is a much higher tax rate in New Zealand, the incentive would be for companies to transfer and to look at ways of base erosion in New Zealand to take advantage of lower tax rates overseas.

One of the important things in the New Zealand economy that we need to make sure of is that our rules are consistent with overseas rules, so that we’re not encouraging behaviour that would actually mean that the New Zealand Government misses out in total. The way we’re going with tax rates in the corporate world in New Zealand is that we are creating a difference between what a company would pay in New Zealand tax rates—that is significant—and what a company would pay in another country, and that will be the incentive for base erosion. So this review is really important, because that will identify any points in which the New Zealand tax rates are out of kilter and, therefore, would encourage base erosion.

So Mr Bayly has done an excellent job in putting this forward, and I just want to remind people again of that US tax rate: 21 percent; Australia, 25 percent; France, 25 percent; the UK, about 20 percent, 19 percent; and New Zealand 28 percent.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): In my experience in the House, normally the first call on an amendment tends to be quite relevant to the amendment, but that’s OK. I mean, that’s fine.

As Mr Bennett will know, as the honourable member will know, this is actually a tabled amendment by Mr Bayly to add another part to the bill. What Mr Bayly is suggesting this is about is that after five years we review the whole piece of legislation on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) to see what’s happened with the OECD, to see how the world has changed, and to see if we’re still relevant. Now, there are two things I would say to this. The first thing I would say is that the Finance and Expenditure Committee only received one submission on a review of the bill, and that submission was on a three-year review, and it was specifically to do with the permanent establishment rules. That is all. It wasn’t to do with the whole legislation whatsoever. So there was no widespread call for this at all. In fact, you could say there’s almost no interest in this whatsoever.

But the most important thing, I would say, and the reason why we can’t back this and why I can’t back this as a Minister, is because of something that the Hon David Bennett will be well aware of as a previous chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which is that tax legislation is always under review—it’s always under review. In fact, there are normally about two omnibus tax bills before the House every single year, tidying up or changing or amending or deleting pieces of tax legislation. So what the IRD does is just business as usual. It just goes through legislation and it amends it appropriately depending on what circumstances are current and what aren’t. So the US tax rate has nothing to do with this whatsoever. But what the IRD will do, and what the IRD will continue to do—and keep it in mind that we have experts in this area, and I’ve spoken about this three or four times in the chair. We have Carmel Peters, for example, who is a world expert in base erosion and profit shifting.

Please don’t think that as soon as this bill passes through the House, then that’s the end—we up sticks and we don’t do another thing on BEPS ever again. Anyone in this House who has had anything to do with tax knows, whether it’s on select committee, whether it’s speaking on a bill—and you will be speaking on another omnibus bill soon—or whether it’s even as a Minister of Revenue or having sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that tax law, by its very nature, has to keep up with the changing world. It has to keep up with the changing world.

My concern is that if we actually passed a piece of legislation like this—this tabled amendment: new Part 3 of Mr Bayly’s—then it might send the impression that, “You know what? We’re not going to do anything for five years. We’re going to sit back and we’re going to let the rest of the world do whatever they do. The world’s going to move on, and we’re going to do nothing until the review comes up.” And the review of a piece of legislation like this would take about a year; it would come through the House—so, all up, let’s say 12 to 24 months. Well, that is totally unrealistic. What I would say is that IRD will not wait for five years to review this piece of legislation. They’ll not stop looking at what’s happening globally. They won’t stop amending the legislation to make sure it is absolutely relevant and world class and maintains the integrity of the tax system, because the integrity of the tax system is the utmost consideration of the Inland Revenue Department.

So what Mr Bayly is proposing is something that is done anyway. What Mr Bayly is proposing may, in fact, send the very wrong message—that being that we’re not going to do anything for five years. So what I can promise Mr Bayly, and the previous speaker David Bennett, and this committee, is that Inland Revenue will not stop in ensuring that our base erosion and profit shifting legislation is, in fact, world leading and meets all the requirements of the OECD, and continues to keep pace with the changing global market place. So that is why I, simply, can’t support this tabled amendment. Thank you very much.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to respectfully disagree with Minister Nash and his comments on the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. He was quite confused, I think, because on the one hand he said that we’re always reviewing tax law, but then he doesn’t want to review this more formally—I acknowledge that. My point here is that this is a very complicated, large piece of work—new work, pioneering work, leading-edge work. We have one of the world’s experts in the field, and I acknowledge that, but then surely, for that reason alone, the fact that we are leading the world in this legislation and practice—surely that is a very good reason to make sure that we are checking ourselves more formally than just a business-as-usual review.

The comments the Minister said—that business as usual was about reviewing stuff, but then he didn’t actually want to do a full-blown review, a proper review, because it took from one year to 24 months, to use his words—far too long, far too time-consuming, too many resources applied to review this particular piece of legislation, but then he’s happy for the guys in the back office of IRD somewhere, to review it anyway as business as usual. So it seems to me that those guys doing business as usual will not give enough attention, will not give enough focus on the review of this leading legislation.

So I do support the review of the legislation, and I’m going to obviously support the amendment, which talks about five years—the Minister has mentioned three, a submitter has mentioned three years as an appropriate time. Maybe three years is an appropriate time, but I think that there’s always a danger in leading something and not sort of looking around from time to time, because when you’re at the front of a race, you don’t necessarily go in the right direction. When you’re leading something, you may go down a path that is actually the wrong path. I’ve done it—orienteering and cross-country running. It’s much easier to be running, following in second or third place with an eye to the leader, with an eye to the frontrunners, and then when it’s appropriate to move from fifth place to fourth place to a bronze medal, silver medal, and potentially lead at a later date.

There are a whole lot of risks associated with leading the pack. I can’t remember the term, but a “fast follower” is always my preferred position, if you like, with any—whether it’s a business or whether it’s legislation; particularly relevant in this case where we’re talking about legislation. So I would really encourage the Minister to rethink his view, given that it is leading, given that it is led by one of the world’s experts, given that it is new, and because of those things it is high-risk by its very nature; plus, all the complications that we all acknowledge—it’s the most complicated, complex tax legislation that Ms Turner, the adviser to the committee, had seen in 30 years.

So, surely we can’t just say, “Oh well, that’s pretty well done and dusted. Let’s just review it as business as usual.” I think we really need to take a good, hard look at this just to see where the other countries are, to look to our left and look to our right and just make sure that the guys in the other countries are following our practice—make sure that they’re not going off down a different road, and we find ourselves isolated with a piece of outdated legislation that will cost us a lot more in the long run if we do not review it. So there’s the challenge: without review, will this potentially cost the country more than we possibly could anticipate?

So I encourage the Minister to rethink and, perhaps, make a few comments on the issues that I’ve raised in my contribution. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the chance to speak to this intended insertion of Part 3 proposed by Andrew Bayly’s tabled amendment, following various colleagues who have done so. I also acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, for his comments in relation to some points made so far. I think his remarks have been made in good faith—intelligible and intelligent, but none the less not perhaps picking up on the very specific purpose of this particular amendment.

The Minister commented that tax law has to keep up with the changing world, and of course that is perfectly true, so far as it goes. The point of the amendment, however, is to require not only that the usual practice of New Zealand in relation to tax law is followed but, in fact, that will be our policy—so not merely something that is customary but is in fact required moving forward.

The Minister has commented in relation to that that it might well be that reviews of our taxation legislation in general might well take place more regularly than every five years. However, this is encapsulated well—contemplated, even—in the wording of the amendment, such that proposed new clause 55, named “Review”, specifies that the review would need to take place—and I quote—“no later than five years after this Act receives Royal Assent.” The point of me emphasising that is that the review might well take place before the five years are up. That means that we would have a situation whereby we don’t duplicate existing review-type focus, such as the Minister has highlighted, but, at the same time, we will meet the legislative intent, should the amendment pass, that a review will take place at least within the five years.

Further to that, adding to the strength and the weight and, hence, the necessity of this provision, the language is very clear that the Minister responsible must commission a review. So the mandatory language is really important; this is not merely, as I say, a matter of custom or, perhaps, something that is a “nice to have”. It will be a “need to have”, captured in our statute book as such.

Another aspect of this mandatory review provision, on a quinquennial basis, is that it will be the Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue Department that will be commissioning the review. The wording of the provision makes it clear that the administration of the review would be by his department, but it’s significant that it will be the Minister himself—or herself; obviously “himself” in current terms—who will be commissioning the review. This means that there is an element of responsibility in the sense of ministerial responsibility, Cabinet responsibility, and, therefore, accountability in the way that Ministers are kept accountable and are responsible to the Parliament from which they have been elected. So while it might well be the case that the Inland Revenue Department would, of its own volition, undertake a review if we did not have the specific requirement to do so, the fact that it is a requirement, or at least will be a requirement if we pass it, and the fact that the Minister himself or herself, as the case may be at the time, would be held accountable for a failure to instigate such a review is constitutionally significant.

The nature of the review is something that, perhaps, other colleagues might have more to say on, but if I could emphasise before completing this contribution the point about the requirement to be up to date really tying in with our desire to be at exactly the right pace in terms of international practices. The point was well-made by my colleague Alastair Scott that we do not wish to be either behind or, indeed, too far ahead. The point about that, if I might take the liberty of adding to my colleague’s comments, is that if we are out of sync, out of whack, with other comparable jurisdictions, then we will create a situation in which it may be desirable for international entities of which there is a New Zealand operation to be more or less involved in this country in terms of the operation of their businesses than they would otherwise have been. Thus we would have created an artificial situation that we are trying to avoid by the passage of this legislation in the first place.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak in this. I have to say, it’s a very well-mannered, professional, and intelligent debate from all around the Chamber.

I’d like to congratulate, in particular, Andrew Bayly, my colleague, for his incredibly good amendment suggesting that this Parliament require that there be a review in no later than five years of these provisions. I’d like to thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, for taking a very intelligent look at this—and good-natured, although he’d be even more intelligent and good-natured if he agreed with us, in my humble opinion. And everyone knows how humble I am in my opinions.

As the former Minister who started this whole process, I think this is a very good idea from Andrew Bayly, and I say this not just because he’s my colleague and friend but because, actually, the law needs to be able to be reviewed and changed, because not just are we dealing with big multinationals and, obviously, business but it’s the fact that the nature of business, the nature of communication, the nature of how things evolve is changing so rapidly. I think that what we need to do is, if we look at—not saying this is a criminal area—for instance, and consider the way in which quite a lot of crime has moved into the cyberspace these days, whether it’s around child protection, whether it’s around other criminal activity, quite a lot of it is around the cyber area now.

Five years ago, six years ago, 10 years ago, this Parliament would not have thought that was as important as we do now. So I think this is a very good opportunity to require that this review take place. I know that the Minister has said, well, look, there’s nothing wrong with Inland Revenue undertaking their own review. The fact is, they won’t. They won’t unless they have to, because Inland Revenue will be very busy with any new Government’s or any Minister’s views and looking to see what policies they should be doing. They will already be undertaking their own work on other areas. They’re not going to naturally be looking back to four, three, or five years before to say, well, is that working now? Their general view—and certainly in my experience as a Minister—is that it’s very hard to get departments to want to look backwards and then say “How could we have done it better or should we look at it?” unless a Minister is driving that. That is really important, I think, that we think about the fact that for Inland Revenue it will not necessarily be top of their mind to think, “Is this Act”—it will then be an Act—“actually now fit for purpose?”

Inland Revenue is going to be very busy with its own work. It’s got its whole technology programmes. It’s got everything it’s trying to do around making sure that it is more fit for purpose in its own practices. This is going to be way down the agenda. This is not being driven by Inland Revenue; it’s being driven by the OECD, and Inland Revenue is an active party in all of that and part of those considerations, and they are obviously deeply involved in it and very well respected. But the problem is, they’re not the ones driving it. And I think it is really important that we as a Parliament understand that this bill is a big change in terms of our international tax structure and how we work with other jurisdictions overseas. So it is important that we keep this in the forefront of our minds.

We talk about multinationals. We forget that we do have some multinationals active in New Zealand who are, by the way, New Zealand companies—or we would see them as New Zealand companies. I think that we need to be aware whether or not any of the provisions of what we are going to pass today or sometime this year are going to in any way badly affect their business and, therefore, the shareholders in New Zealand and New Zealand’s best interests. So I think a review would be very helpful to the Minister in the chair. We would think it was a great step up for the Minister to accept this and I’d fully recommend that Andrew Bayly’s amendment be supported by this House.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Bayly be agreed to:

After clause 53B, insert new Part 3

Part 3 - Parameters of Review

54 Purpose

To provide for a review of taxation practices in New Zealand compared to relevant international taxation schemes to ensure New Zealand taxation practices remain fit for purpose in protecting against base erosion and profit shifting.

55 Review

The Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue Department Revenue must commission a review into the functions and practices of this Act no later than five years after this Act receives Royal Assent.

(1) The review must be administered by the Inland Revenue Department and;

(2) Must include a review into the nature of base erosion and profit shifting behaviour

a. The provisions of this Act;

b. Relevant changes in taxation policy in relevant OECD countries;

c. Relevant reports by the OECD on tax base erosion and profit shifting;

d. Any other matter deemed important by the Inland Revenue Department.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to:

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): This gives us an opportunity to talk about the title of the bill and the commencement date of the bill, if I’m not incorrect. I’d like to suggest—and I am a little bit disturbed about the title, actually. I think it’s inappropriately—or it could be better—titled, in my view. Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Sharing) Bill: well, we know that we can’t completely stop people from avoiding or evading tax, so neutralising, I think, is an inappropriate word. I think it should be “minimising” or, I prefer, “shrinking”—shrinking base erosion and profit shifting—or, two words, “making smaller”—making smaller base erosion. Then we could even extend it to “putting cold water on” or even “neuting”, but even those are a little bit weak. Maybe the goal, if we’re aspirational, should be talking about “eliminating”—eliminating base erosion and profit shifting—“eradicating”, or even “wiping out” base erosion and profit shifting.

Now, the next two words “Base Erosion”, they’re not very clear. It’s not clear to me what that means—or the man on the street certainly would not be clear about what base erosion means. Is it tax minimising, because tax minimising is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance: illegal. Minimising—perfectly within a taxpayer’s right to minimise their tax liability. So base erosion seems—to me, at least—to mean that one should be able to minimise the tax liability that one could be obliged to pay. So base erosion is quite an ambiguous phrase.

Then, of course, “Profit Shifting”: profit shifting is also ambiguous, because profit shifting could be, on the one hand, avoidance, which is illegal, and then, of course, as I said earlier, minimising or moving your profit from one entity to another—through, obviously, legal means—is a minimising exercise, which is absolutely fine as well. So I’m thinking, instead of profit shifting, it should be tax avoidance or offshore tax avoidance.

So we’re getting to a situation where we could say, “Taxation (Putting Cold Water on Tax Minimising and Eliminating Tax Avoidance where it’s to do with Overseas Businesses) Bill”. So that’s my proposed title to the bill. I think it’s a far more eloquent, far more descriptive title than the current bill is named, and I’d be interested to hear what the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, says about my very positive and constructive comments.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I don’t think in my time in the committee a Minister has stood up and talked to the title and commencement, but, after that, I really can’t help myself. What we’ve got here is a—[Interruption] Ha, ha! In a way, the bill should describe exactly what it is, and the thing that I can see that the member Alastair Scott couldn’t is the former Minister of Revenue and the former supporter of this bill, sitting down here and going, “Oh, goodness me! It doesn’t get any better than this.” There is a technical term, and it is called base erosion and profit shifting. It’s used throughout the world. It’s used throughout the OECD. It’s shortened to BEPS. There is no other way to describe it, because this is how everyone describes it.

This bill is about neutralising—we have a lot more aspiration. When the member said it should be “minimising”—no, we want to get rid of it. We want to ensure that multinational organisations do not rip off our tax base, and we also want to make sure that we maintain and enhance the integrity of our tax system. This is exactly what this bill is about, and I think the title epitomises exactly what the bill does. “Taxation”—it’s about taxation. “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting”—that is the globally accepted term for this.

This is a complex piece of legislation—I acknowledge this; everyone acknowledges this. If you went down to—quote unquote—“the man in the street” and said, “What’s base erosion and profit shifting?”, no one knows. But I’ll tell you what, though: if you went down there and said, “Do you think that”—well, not you, Madam Chair; “Do we think that multinationals should pay their fair share?”, everyone gets that. Everyone believes that everyone, whether you’re a large multinational operating in New Zealand or just a stock standard taxpayer—everyone believes we should pay our fair share of tax. What this bill does—it is ensuring that we are neutralising base erosion and profit shifting, i.e., eliminating the ability of multinationals to rip off our tax system. It is hugely important in terms of the integrity of our tax system.

In terms of the date, it comes into force on 1 July. I mean, I think I’ve spoken two or three times on why that date is important. We all know why it’s important. But there is nothing you can say about this headline that doesn’t describe exactly what the bill does and give it its technical term. I’ve nothing more to say.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): It’s with some trepidation that I offer some comments further to the Minister’s response to Alastair Scott’s comments on the title of the bill. Mostly by way of acknowledgment, there is a certain rationale. I think, however, it’s somewhat idealistic to think that we can completely eliminate all aspects and attempts to engage in such activities, so perhaps reduction or mitigation might be more realistic and less idealistic, but, none the less, congratulations to all those who have been involved in producing this bill, from the previous Minister, the Hon Judith Collins, to the current Minister—now in the chair, of course—the Hon Stuart Nash, for having such lofty ideals. I wish them and all those involved in the administration of tax all the very best in meeting those goals.

One other aspect of the title I thought might be worth mentioning, quite briefly, was the phrase “Base Erosion”, because I wonder if there might be some confusion because it sounds either a bit electoral or environmental. Base erosion might refer to the normal reaction of traditional Labour Party supporters in relation to legislation, whereby their base might be eroded. In this case, however, because we have a sensible piece of legislation, as originally proposed by the previous Government, I suspect that won’t necessarily be the case. Or it might be a bit environmental, being base erosion and perhaps invoking shorelines and shifting sands, other than in the metaphorical sense, as it applies to tax. But I think, perhaps, those are not particularly worthwhile dwelling on any further.

So, finally, in relation to the commencement date, I would comment that it’s slightly unusual for sections to come into force prior to the date on which the bill receives Royal assent. I refer specifically to clauses 4, subclauses (1) and (3), and clause 42, which we learn come into force on 1 April 2008—not an April Fools’ gag, I am sure, but the Minister might have some comment there. The retrospectivity is justified somewhat by reference to the meaning and effect of those provisions, such that “Interest paid by non-resident companies to non-residents” and also the application by a person for the 2008 and subsequent years does indeed need to be contemplated by this. So it’s somewhat backward-looking in that regard.

So that was the comment that I wanted to make, just to place on record that it’s somewhat unusual in our constitutional framework to have legislation that, in effect, has some manner of application prior to it having been passed by the House. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I just wanted to say a few parting thoughts on this legislation as it works its way through. I think you could potentially use the words “Counteracting Base Erosion and Profit Shifting”. It might be more, I think, accurate than “Neutralising”, but we could reflect on that over time.

I was thinking, particularly, in terms of the commencement date being 1 July, and I’m sure all members of the House will be aware that today is actually 21 June, which is not far away from 1 July. We’re on the committee stage of the bill. We have the third reading still to go, and then the Royal assent, so the only conclusion one can draw is that this Government is cutting it a bit fine. It points to a certain lack of skill in managing the work of the House that they’ve got themselves into this state, which was indeed the point of the discussion in the debates that we had last night around the road taxing bill, as well, because it’s all being done at a mad rush.

So there is a theme emerging, I think, that we see reflected in the title and the commencement date of this bill that it’s a Government that is a bit shambolic and just scrambling to get things done in the nick of time, just before the legislation is meant to take effect. So we’re seeing all of the other manifestations of that shambolicness this week. We’ve got Ministers not sure whether they’re talking in private capacities or as Ministers, we’ve got the Government making big decisions such as on oil and gas with no Cabinet process, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Just a matter of relevance.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the relevance is that it’s a reflection on a Government that has been very ill-disciplined and shambolic in its nature. That is reflected in the fact that this bill is coming into the House and it is to take effect on 1 July, as we see, and we are here debating it on, indeed, 21 June. There’s very little time, and it just reflects on the fact that there’s a lot of work to be done in terms of establishing good quality systems of Government.

Now, when you look at this bill, this is a bill that is part of one of the most effective mechanisms of Government policy in this country in terms of the development of tax policy. It goes through a whole lot of hoops, and this started a long time ago in the previous Government. It has been shepherded through by this current Minister of Revenue, Stuart Nash, who’s done a good job, and that is the way that policy should be developed.

So the only point I would make is that it is a complex bill. It is going to be taking effect on 1 July. In every aspect of tax legislation, it is complex, and I’ve no doubt we will be revisiting aspects of this in time to come because we won’t get it all perfectly right. I just hope, as a parting thought, that the Minister will, after 1 July, maintain his eagle eye on this area and be open to respond and adapt as the time comes. On that basis, I just want to commend this bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In the last three or four hours good will seems to have broken out in the House and the House has made excellent progress on the business before it. I therefore seek leave for the House to rise early for the evening.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

The House adjourned at 5.46 p.m.